The State Government was competent to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and make provisions regarding delegation of the appellate functions.

S. N. Jha, J.

1. -tn these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Special Director (Secondary Education) in exercise of the appellate power under Sec.28 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education board Act, 1981 (Act 52/82) (here in after referred to as the Act) on the ground, inter alta, of lack of jurisdiction. The point being common they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The Act provides for constitution of Bihar State Madarsa Education board (in short-the Board) as an autonomous body for development and better supervision of Madarsa Education. Sec.7 lays down the powers and functions of the board. Sec.13 enumerates the powers of its Chairman. Sec.28 provides for appeal against the orders passed by the Boald and the Chairman It also prescribes the forum of appeal, namely the State government. The State Government has authorised the Special Director (Secondary Education) to hear and decide appeals under Sec.28 vide notification No.280 dated 11th March 1993 of the Education Department. The point urged is that the statute having created the forum of appeal and vested the appellate powers in it, in the absence of any provision permitting delegation of powers and functions, the authorisation is ultra vires.

3. It is well settld that an appellate function, even where the appeal is from an administratiue order and the appellate power is vested in another administrative authority is a quasi judicial function. Reference may be made to the case of Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1868. lt is equally well settled that a function which is a quasi judicial in nature cannot be delegated to another person or body unless such delegation is authorised by the statute expressly or by necessary implication.

4. On behalf of the respondents attention was drawn to the Bihar State madarsa Education Board Control (Appeal) Rules.1983 framed Purportedly under section 27 of the Act vide Notification No.269 dated 11th March 1983 (hereinafter referred to a the Rules), laying down the procedure of filing and manner of disposal of appeals under Sec.28 of the Act. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the Managing Committee or any person aggrieved b the order of the Board or its Chairman can prefer appeal before the authority as may be authorised by the State Government under notification. Notification no.260 dated 11th March 1993 (supra) authorising the Special director. Secondary Education to hear the appeals has been issued under the said Rules.

5. Section 27 of the Act under which the Rules have been framed empowers the State Government to give direction to the Board as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Act, to call upon the Board to furnish necessary information or explanation for the above purposes etc. The rule making power has been conferred upon the State Government under Section 25. which runs as follows ; 26. Power of the State Government to make Rules :-

(1) The State government may by notification is the official gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, such rule may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-It may be stated that sub-section (2) enumerates as many as 13 topics. It docs not specify filing and manner of disposal of appeal under Sec.28. The point is whether omission to specify particular matter or topic disables the State Government to frame rules with respect thereto. In other words, whether the State Government is not competent to frame rules with respect to such a matter under sub-section (1) for carrying out the purposes of the act. It should be kept in mind that if the statute provides for appeal, it would only be logical to say that the rules have to be framed to make the appellate provision meaningful and effective. The point is well settled by catena of decisions.

6 In the case