@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against the action taken by the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Board, for short) in respect of the Management of Bapujinagar High School. The Managing Committee of the said school was constituted on 24th February, 1992 with the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as its President, Vice President and Secretary respectively and other writ petitioners as its members. By an order of the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated 5-5-1995 as conveyed to the Head Master of the said school by the Secretary of the Board under his letter dated 15-5-1995, annexure-E to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6, an Ad hoc Committee was appointed for the management of the said school for a period till 4-5-1996 or till the reconstitution of the Managing Committee or until further order whichever would be earlier. The Assistant Inspector of Schools, Ranaghat Sub- division has been appointed the president of that Ad hoc Committee. The grievance of the petitioners is that the President of the Board superseded the elected Managing Committee of the school unjustly and illegally without giving any opportunity to the Committee to present its case before the Board. Under R. 8(1) of the Management of Recognised Non-government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (Management Rules, for short), the Executive Committee of the Board has the power to supersede the Managing Committee of a school if the Executive Committee is of opinion that the Managing Committee is not functioning properly and in that case the Executive Committee of the Board is also empowered to appoint an Administrator or a Ad hoc Committee to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee. The proviso to the said R. 8(1) requires that before superseding a Managing Committee the Executive Committee of the Board shall however afford a reasonable opportunity to the Managing Committee to present its case before the Executive Committee. Sub-rule (1a) of R. 8 of the Management Rules however contains independent provision under which the Executive Committee of the Board has also power to appoint an Administrator or Ad hoc Committee in respect of any institution where the term of the Committee has expired but the Committee has not been reconstituted for any reason whatsoever. Rule 12 of the Management Rules provides that the term- of the Managing Committee ''shall be three years from the date on which its constitution or reconstitution is completed by the election of the office bearers and nomination by the Director or from the date of expiry of the term of the previous Committee whichever is later''. The first proviso to the said R. 12 however provides that such term may be extended by the Executive Committee of the Board for sufficient reasons, by a period not exceeding one year, but in exceptional circumstances it may be extended for such further period so however that the total period shall not exceed two years. Clause 31 of the Prescribed Procedure for Holding Election provides that unless there is specific approval from the Board extending the statutory term of a Managing Committee, every member of such Committee shall have to vacate on the expiry of its usual term of three years.
2. The position in law is therefore clear that the normal tenure of the Managing Committee of a school is three years and on the expiry of the said normal tenure of three years the Managing Committee becomes functus officio unless its tenure is extended by the Board under the first proviso to R. 12 of the Management Rules. The Managing Committee of the concerned school in our present case, having been constituted on the 24th February, 1992 its normal tenure of three years expired on 24th February, 1995. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the Managing Committee of the school adopted a resolution on the 14th November, 1994 for making a prayer to the Board for extension of the term of the Managing Committee up to 4th October, 1995 and they also prepared an election programme in detail for the purpose of holding election for the reconstitution of the Managing Committee and forwarded the same to the Board under the letter dated the 19th November, 1994, annexure-B to the writ petition. According to the proposed programme the election process starting with the publication of the provisional voters'' list was to commence on the 24th July, 1995 and the election was to be held on the 27th August, 1995. It appears that the Board wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Managing Committee which is dated 17-1-1995. Annexure-D to the writ petition, in which the Secretary was asked to inform the Board as to what steps had been taken on the Board''s Circular No. S/192 dated 8-6-1994 Clause l(c) and also the reason for non-approval of the proposed voters'' list. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the said circular No. S/192 dated 1-6-1994 was not at all applicable to the Managing Committee of their school and the recital in the said letter that the Head Master did not approve the election programme submitted by the Managing Committee was also factually confusing inasmuch as the voters'' list has to be submitted not by the Managing Committee but by the Head Master and has to be approved by the Managing Committee, but the recital in the letter indicated a reverse process which, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, reflected total non-application of mind. There is no doubt that the said letter regarding approval of the voters'' list contains a confused proposition but that by itself does not add to the merit of the petitioners'' case. It is also true that the Board''s circular No. S/192 dated 8-6-94 was not applicable to the Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition as the term of the Managing Committee was to continue in its normal course up to 24-2-1995 without the aid of the said circular. By its circular No. S/192 dated 8-6-1994, annexure-D to the writ petition, the Board extended the tenures of the Managing Committees/Ad hoc Committees/ Organising Committees/ Administrators of all schools in general up to 31-12-94 or till the completion of election of office bearers or until further order, whichever would be earlier, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It is therefore evident that the question of application of the said circular could arise only in respect of such schools the tenure of whose Managing Committees/Ad hoc Committees/Administrators would expire before 31-12-1994, the evidently the said circular would not apply to a Managing Committee whose normal tenure was to continue up to any date beyond 31-12-1994. Therefore the said circular was not at all applicable to the Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition and accordingly the Board''s letter dated 17-1-1995 referred to above is slightly misconceived. But as I have mentioned, that by itself will not create any right in favour of the Managing Committee of the school to continue beyond its normal term of three years unless the Board extends its term. It is not in dispute that the Board did not extend the normal term of the Managing Committee of this school by any specific order intended for this school alone.
3. The petitioners however contend that by circular No. S/421 dated 29-12-1994, annexure-C to the writ petition, the Board in general extended the tenure of Managing Committees of all schools up to 30-6-1995 and accordingly the tenure of the Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition also got extended, beyond its normal tenure expiring on 24-2-1995, till 30-6-1995 in terms of that general circular. It is on the other hand contended on behalf of the respondents that the said circular of the Board dated 29-12-1994 did not apply to the Managing Committee of this school inasmuch as the said circular had been expressly made subject to certain conditions mentioned therein and the Managing Committee of the concerned school did not satisfy any of such conditions as applicable to the case. The general extension of tenure which was granted by the said circular was made subject to the following conditions, viz. :--
"(a) In cases of schools where different stages of election for constitution/ reconstitution of Managing Committee have already been held prior to the date of issue of this circular the election of the office-bearers of such committees shall be completed as per rules if there is no contrary order from court.
(b) In cases of schools the term of whose Managing Committee/ Administrator/ Ad hoc Committee/Organising Committee was not extended in terms of circular No. S/347, dated 13-10-93, S/439, dated 3-1-94 and S/192, dated 8-6-94 will not be considered for extension of term under this circular unless they submit election programme drawn as per rules if there is no contrary order from the court.
(c) All other schools the term of whose Managing Committee/ Administrator/ Ad hoc Committee/Organising Committee has been extended previously and which have neither held election for constitution or reconstitution of Managing Committee prior to the date of issue of this circular stated in (a) and (b) above must take steps to constitute/ reconstitute the Managing Committee strictly in accordance with the rules within 30-4-95 positively, if there is no contrary order from the court.
Schools should note that the reconstitution of the Managing Committee should be completed within 30-4-95 without tail. Board would not consider further extension beyond 30-6-95. Therefore all formalities for reconstitution of the Managing Committee should be positively completed within this date.
****************
Board however reserves the right to appoint Administrator/ Ad hoc Committee where the same would be necessary for administrative reasons."
A plain reading of the conditions enumerated in the circular as noted above would show that conditions of the Clauses (a) and (c) mentioned therein are required to be complied with by the concerned Managing Committees which have been granted the benefit of the extension of tenure. The benefit of extension in such cases automatically goes to the concerned schools with the liability to comply with the conditions mentioned in the respective clauses and obviously in case of any non-compliance of the conditions in clause (a) or clause (c), as the case may be, the Managing Committee not complying with such condition but which is enjoying extension in terms of the said circular may be superseded by the Board under R. 8(1) of the Management Rules after affording a reasonable opportunity to it to present its case before the Board. But the position under clause (b) is rather different. A plain reading of clause (b) of the conditions of extension would show that the Managing Committee which is governed by that clause will have to obtain order of extension from the Board on compliance of the condition regarding submission of election programme mentioned in the said clause (b) as is clearly indicated by the expression "will not be considered for extension of term" as used therein. This condition in clause (b) is rather a condition precedent. In the present case the concerned school is not covered b clause (a) or clause (c) of the conditions of extension. If at all, it is covered by the condition (b) because the Mananging Committee of this school did not earlier have any occasion to get any extension of its tenure under any of the circulars mentioned in the said clause. The said clause (b) clearly states that there may be Managing Committees whose term was not extended by any of the circulars mentioned therein and in such a case the question of extension will not be considered unless the Managing Committee submits election programme drawn as per rules. Therefore in such case the circular itself does not give automatic extension of term of the concerned Managing Committee but the question of extension is left to the consideration of the Board on submission of election programme by the Managing Committee of the school. Therefore a school which is covered under the said clause (b) does not get an automatic extension of the term of its Managing Committee but the extension would fall for consideration of the Board on submission of election programme. Again in the said circular it was clearly stated that the reconstruction of the Managing Committee should be completed within 30-4-95 without fail. As we have seen, the Managing Committee of this school submitted an election programme according to which the election process itself was to be started sometime in July 1995 and the election was to be held on 24th August, 1995. Therefore the submission of such a programme was not only inconsistent with but was also violative of the terms of the Board''s Circular No. S/424 dated 29-12-94. Therefore on that basis the Managing Committee manned by the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the said circular dated 29-12-1994 regarding extension of its tenure. Mere submission of a programme where clause (b) of the conditions of that circular is attracted, does not result into an automatic extension of the tenure of the Managing Committee governed by the said clause (b), particularly where the election programme has not been drawn up in conformity with the time limit laid down for the purpose in the circular of the Board. As we have seen, the election programme submitted by the Managing '' Committee to the Board was wholly inconsistent with the term of the said circular which required the election to be completed within 30-4-95 whereas according to the petitioners'' programme the election was to be held on 27th August, 1995. That being so the proposed programme itself being patently violative of the term of the circular, there was no question of availing of the benefit of the said circular dated 29-12-94 by the petitioners in the matter of claiming automatic extension of the tenure in terms of the said circular. Therefore the position comes to this that the normal tenure of the petitioners'' Managing Committee came to an end on 24-2-95 and the benefit of extension of the tenure under circular dated 29-12-94 was not available to the said Managing Committee for reasons elaborately discussed above. There was also no specific order of the Board extending the term of the petitioners'' Managing Committee for any period beyond its normal tenure which expired on 24-2-95.
4. As we have seen the President of the Board in exercise of his power under S. 28(2) of the West Bengal Secondary Education Act, 1963 appointed an Ad hoc Committee for the concerned school by his order dated 5-5-95 when the petitioners'' Managing Committee had already become defunct by reason of expiry of its normal tenure of three years. Since the Committee had already become functus officio there was no question of affording any opportunity to it to present its case before the appointment of the Ad hoc Committee. The question of affording such opportunity comes under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 8 of the Management Rules where the Managing Committee is in existence within its normal or extended tenure which, as we have seen, is not the case here. But where an Ad hoc Committee is appointed under sub-rule (la) of R. 8 of the Management Rules as has been the case here when the Managing Committee has already been defunct due to the expiry of its tenure there is no question of supersession of a defunct Managing Committee and there is also no provision under said sub-rule (I a) to give any opportunity to such defunct Committee before any Administrator or Ad hoc Committee is appointed under the said sub-rule(la). The plea taken by the petitioners that before appointing an Ad hoc Committee they should have been given an opportunity by the Board to place their case is therefore found untenable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, namely, Sachi Nath v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education 1976 (2) CLJ 289 and Ashim Bhattacharjee v. Board of Secondary Education 1979 (2) CHN 341 are not attracted here where the Managing Committee has already become functus officio by reason of expiry of its term. I therefore find no substantial reason to interfere in the matter. Since the Secretary of the Ad hoc Committee of the school has been added as respondent No. 7 in this writ petition I dispose of the writ petition with the expectation that the Ad hoc Committee will take all necessary steps towards the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school in terms of the order of the President of the Board appointing the Ad hoc Committee. There will however be no order as to costs.
5. Order accordingly.
