The provisions of Rule 10-B of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, requiring ten clear days' notice of meetings for the election, selection, or co-option of members to the Managing Committee of a school, are mandatory and imperative.

Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.

1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a guardian of a student of High School, Barkagaon, in the district of Shahabad, has challenged the order dated 6th of July, 1970 (Annexure 3 to the petition) of the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar (respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal or the petitioner before him against the constitution of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school and holding that selection of the guardians representatives to the Managing Committee of the school was valid. At a meeting dated 22nd of February, 1970, Dharamjit Singh and Rakchapal Singh (Respondents 5 and 6) were selected as guardians representatives to the Managing Committee or the school. It is this selection which was challenged by the petitioner before the President, Board of Secondary Education.

2. The petitioner is a guardian of a student of the school is not in dispute. The main ground on which the selection of respondents 5 and 6 to the Managing Committee is challenged is that the petitioner had no clear ten days notice of the meeting as required by Rule 10-B of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules"). Chapter III of the Rules deals with constitution of Managing Committee of a school, other than a proprietary school. It is admitted that High School, Barkagaon, is a school other than proprietary school and this Chapter applies to it. Rule 3, which is the first rule of this Chapter, lays down that Managing Committee of such a school shall consist of :-

-

(1) all hereditary members and life members (declared under Rule 4);

(2) the Headmaster (ex-officio);

(3) a teachers representative, to be appointed by the Headmaster in the manner laid down in Rule 5;

(4) an officer of the Education Department of the State Government, to be nominated by the President of the Board of Secondary Education;

(5) two donors, if available, to be elected in the manner laid down in Rule 6;

(6) two guardians, to be elected in the manner laid down in Rule 7;

(7) one member of the State Legislature representing or residing in the Assembly constituency in which the school is situated to be co-opted by the members referred to in items (1), (4), (5), and (6) of this rule; and

(8) three persons of the locality, interested in education, of which one shall be a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes if not otherwise a member, to be co-opted by the members referred to in items (1) to (7) of this rule.

Rule 10-B says that notice of every meeting for the election, selection or co-option shall be given to the persons concerned at least ten clear days before the day appointed for the meeting, stating therein the date, time and place of such a meeting. The case of the petitioner is that a notice about the said meeting dated 22nd of February, 1970 signed by the Headmaster (respondent No. 4) and dated 13th of February, 1970 was received by him only on 16th of February, 1970 and as the provisions of Rule 10-B are mandatory and ten clear days notice was not given to the petitioner of the said meeting, the selection of respondents 5 and 6 as guardians representatives to the Managing Committee is illegal and ultra vires. Mr. Prabha Shankar Mishra appearing for the petitioner at one stage wanted to argue that Rule 7 of the Rules was ultra vires on account of its vagueness, but, as no such ground was taken in the petition, he gave the point up.

3. Respondents 5, 6 and 10 (the teachers representative to the Managing Committee of the school) have filed show cause stating that notices were issued to all the guardians as early as 7th of February, 1970 and repeatedly on subsequent dates through their wards and, therefore, the petitioner had ten clear days notice of the meeting. Their case further is that the petitioner participated in the meeting held on 22nd of February, 1970 and did not