Calcutta High Court
Siliguri Hindi High School & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. on 10 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)2CALLT169(HC)
Author: A. Lala
Bench: Amitava Lala
JUDGMENT A. Lala, J.
1. This writ petition is made challenging the order of appointment of an Administrator in respect of Siliguri Hindi High School (Girls section). It appears to me that three persons have made this writ petition. One is Siliguri Hindi High School, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961; 2nd is the Secretary of such School and the 3rd is the Secretary of Siliguri Hindi High School (Girls section) recognised as Slliguri Hindi High School for Girls. Mangturam Road, Siliguri, District Darjeeling. It is categorically contended by Mr. S. Bhunla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of this writ petition that the Siliguri Hindi High School for boys is a linguistic minority Institution as obviously governed by the Special Constitution. I also find that in W.P. 2234(W)/ 1998 a single Bench of this Court was pleased to deliver a judgment on 7.4.98 in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, against the said judgment and order, an appeal was preferred .by the concerned respondents and the same is pending before a Division Bench of this Court. However, such Appeal Court was pleased to pass an interim order of status quo.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that Girls section of the Institution is a part and parcel of the original Institution on which an appeal is pending. Both cannot be separated from each other. The order to be passed by the Appeal Court will be binding both the boys and girls section of the Institution. But he is not eager to make any submission in respect of the appeal nor he can do so. He is, by making this writ petition, eager to submit that under this circumstances no order for appointment of an Administrator can be given effect to without any opportunity of hearing by the Board prejudging the issue whether the Institution is linguistic Institution or not Above all, by virtue of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Panchanan Mondal and Ors. v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and Ors.), two pre-conditions are to be fulfilled as conditions prescribed for the purpose of an appointment of Administrator which are as follows:
(a) the report as regards mismanagement of the affairs of school; and
(b) compliance of the principles of natural Justice.
3. Since both the conditions were not fulfilled by the respondent-Board, the Administrator cannot continue his function in the school in the manner as it has been done. He also cited two other judgments of the Supreme Court. One is (Basudeo Ttwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors.) wherein it was held in para 10 that in order to impose procedural safeguards, the Court has to read the requirement of natural justice in many situations when the statute is silent on this point. Twofold submissions have been by Mr. Bhunia, learned counsel for the petitioners that one is the requirement of natural Justice and other is salience of the statute. According to him, the Circular No. 553-Edn(S) dated 26.4.78 covered the field of linguistic minority since the same is not available under the Management Rules made for the Secondary Institutions. He also referred the second judgment which is (Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training v. Jt. Director of Public Instructions Sagar and Ors.) by saying that the right of minority is flowing from the Articles 30 of the Constitution of India itself. Therefore, such right cannot be ignored by any Rules and Regulations or by any enactment made by the State.
4. I have carefully considered the submission of Mr. Bhunia and called upon the respondents' Counsel to make their submissions separately or by adopting argument of each other. From such submissions, I find that the Board is not considering the Sillguri Hindi High School for Girls as a part of the minority Institution. According to the Board, this is a separate Institution and governed by a separate Managing Committee. Such Managing Committee, in spite of having the tenure as per the Rules and extension of the period, has not been constituted by way of election. In such way, the Managing Committee is continuing for an indefinite period. Now when it has been observed that the statutory term of the Managing Committee of the above school having expired long back, a deadlock has been created in the affairs of the school to overcome the situation as an emergency and for the purpose of filling of the administrative vacuum with immediate effect an Administrator was appointed for a period pf one year from the date of assumption of charge of the school or till completion of the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school etc. whichever is earlier. Such order was conveyed and the Administrator had duly taken the charge. The petitioner has moved the writ petition after taking over the charge of the Administrator by saying that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the Administrator is appointed. Therefore, the right of the writ petitioners is infringed. But the question before this Court is whose right has been infringed?
5. Out of the three writ petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are not part and parcel of the Siliguri Hindi High School (Girls section). Therefore, the actual writ petitioner is respondent No. 3. Since the time of formation of a new Managing Committee has already been expired admittedly such petitioner has no locus standi to represent the case.
6. Under such situation a reference has been made by the respondents in respect of Rule 12 of the Management Rules being term of the committee by saying that after the expiry of the reconstitution of the Managing Committee, the Committee was not entitled to unction. As such, any act done by such committee is ineffectual and void. In other words, according to me, such petitioner has no locus standi to represent the case on behalf of the Institution nor the Board is bound to serve a notice upon such Secretary who has no authority to represent the Institution. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any relief whatsoever under this writ petition.
7. The petitioner has contended before this Court that Girls section is also a linguistic minority Institution and in fact, the order of the Appeal Court will have a binding effect upon the same. But I am sorry to say that the Girls School has been recognised separately. However, for the sake of argument if I accept the submission of Mr. Bhunia, I cannot pass any order in favour of the petitioners until and unless the appeal is disposed of affirmatively in their favour. Therefore, to that extent this writ is premature. Therefore, the petitioners cannot say that it is a linguistic minority Institution and no election of Managing Committee is needed to hold. Hence I cannot hold so in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, I do not find any justification in interfering with the running of the institution by the Administrator till such time.
8. So far the question of natural Justice is concerned, it cannot be applicable to a person who has no locus standi, otherwise a void or ineffectual committee will be regularised under the order of the Court directly or indirectly.
9. Under such circumstances the factual aspect on which the Judgment as referred above are considered, cannot be applicable in the instant case. Moreover, natural justice is not one way traffic as the same may be considered in the case of petitioners alone but it has to be considered on the basis of factual circumstances of each case. The institution is yet to be considered as to whether it is minority Institution or not. Therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment wherein the Court proceeded with the minority educational Institution cannot be applicable hereunder. The other Supreme Court Judgment is in respect of natural Justice of hearing of the service of a party. Therefore, no question of illegality is forthcoming and is applicable in this case. So far the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, it has dealt with section 28(2) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. But the petitioners specifically submitted that they are not governed by the rules as they are the holder of the special Constitution by way of having linguistic minority although this is not so at least till the disposal of the appeal. There is no scope of holding the same affirmatively by ignoring the right of the President or the Executive Committee under Rule 8(la). Even if I believe that by virtue of the Rule 8 sub-rule 2, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners of hearing but such opportunity should be given to any recognised body or to a person legally entitled to have so. Therefore, the petitioners specially so far the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, there is infirmity in respect of passing such order by the Board or the President following the Board's decision in appointing an Administrator.
10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I have to hold that the writ petitioners cannot be entitled to get any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
At the time of the delivering Judgment Mr. Bhunia fairly pointed out that since according to them the entire property is property of the society, therefore, the function of the Administrator will only be restricted in respect of day to day administration of the concerned School (Girls section) but not in disposing of any property till the disposal of the Appeal. To that all the parties are agreeable. Therefore such restriction is imposed by the Court hereunder.
11. Petition dismissed