Per THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---The present reference reminds observations of Bhagwati, C.J. (as His Lordship then was), in (Zinabhai Ramchhodji Darji v. State of Gujarat others)1, 1972(13) Guj.L.R. 1. Dealing with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, speaking for the Division Bench, the learned Chief Justice observed :

""It is extraordinary and unique piece of legislation framed without much scientific accuracy of language and many of its provisions are so unhappily worded that it is difficult to penetrate their confusion and obscurity. This is not the first time that we are called upon to face the complexities of this legislation and with our growing acquaintance with its provisions, we must confess to a feeling of reluctant respect which one feels for an old touch sparring partner whom one has never been able to knock out."" (emphasis supplied).

2.Reference in Writ Petition No. 285 of 1995 has been made by the Division Bench on August 7, 2001 as the Bench felt that the provisions in Rules 33 and 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, were, prima facie, conflicting. The Division Bench also observed that the decisions of this Court interpreting those Rules were contradictory and the point deserved to be finally decided by a large Bench. Accordingly, the Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

3.Pursuant to the above order, Writ Petition No. 285 of 1995 (Original Side) as also other petitions on Original Side as well as Appellate Side have been placed for our consideration.

4.To appreciate the controversy in the present petitions, few facts in the first matter (Writ Petition No. 285 of 1995) may be stated.

5.The petitioner in the said petition was appointed in June, 1984 as Headmaster in Adarsh Vidya Mandir High School conducted by Adarsh Vidya Mandir, respondent No. 1. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 17th January, 1995 as various allegations had been levelled against him by the management. Admittedly, prior permission had not been granted by the Education Officer for such suspension. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said action being contrary to law. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the management, it was stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21st November, 1994 in respect of illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6th December, 1994. The management thereafter decided to hold inquiry against the petitioner. As the first respondent was of the view that during the pendency of inquiry, the petitioner should be placed under suspension, approval of Education Inspector was sought by the management vide a letter dated 9th December, 1994. No reply, however, was received by the first respondent from the office of Education Inspector. A reminder was, therefore, sent by the management on 28th December, 1994 which was also not replied. Again a second reminder was sent on 6th January, 1995 stating therein that if the management will not receive any reply within seven days, it would take an appropriate action in the matter. According to the management, even the said communication was not replied by Education Inspector and accordingly an order of suspension was passed by the management against the petitioner on 27th January, 1995.

6.The question before the Division Bench was whether the action of the first respondent-management in passing an order of suspension could be said to be in accordance with law. As we will point out hereafter, in view of statutory provisions as also conflicting decisions of this Court, the Division Bench felt it necessary that the point be decided by a larger Bench.

7.Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate, if we consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The parent Act i