Untwalia, C. J.

Although the brief of this case is bulky, the facts may be stated in narrow compass, as the point involved is a short one. Sri Ram Niwas Pandey (respondent No.5) was appointed a Headmaster of T.K. Ghosh Academy, Patna, in the, year 1963. Sometime later, he was confirmed. Several charges were framed against him by the then ad-hoc Managing Committee of the School which eventually led to the passing of a resolution dated 3rd September, 1970, a copy of which is Annexure 5 to the writ application. A detailed analysis of the finding arrived at by the Managing Committee is mentioned in Annexure 5. It is not necessary to refer to any of the details in this judgment. Respondent No. 5 was discharged from service by the resolution of the Managing Committee contained in Annexure 5.

2. In the Education Department's notification dated the 7th September, 1965 were incorporated rules 16 and 17 providing for the filing of an appeal by the discharged teacher of a recognized School. There was also a resolution of the Education Department of the Government of Bihar dated the 2nd April, 1957. As held by the Supreme Court in Dwarkanath Tewari V. State of Bihar, the so-called rules framed by the Education Department were not really rules framed under any statutory power, but they were held to be mere administrative instructions. All these rules and instructions were incorporated in the notification dated the 21st March 1959 published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 23rd March, 1959. The Bihar School (Central and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 (Bihar Act XIII of 1960) was passed. This Act will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. Under section 8 (2) of the Act, the rules and instructions incorporated in the notification published in the extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette dated 23.3.1959 were made statutory rules until the State Government made rules under section 8 (1). At the relevant time the State Government had not made any rules under section 8 (1). Respondent No. 5 therefore, filed an appeal in accordance with rule 16 of the rules contained in the Education Department notification dated 7.9.1955 which hereinafter in this Judgment will be referred to as the Rules. The name of the rules is Rules for Appointment, Departmental Approval, Discharge, Dismissal and Appeal of Teachers of non-Government Secondary Schools. The President of the Board of Secondary Education nominated the Regional Deputy Director of Education to hear the appeal. That was heard on some dates by one Regional Deputy Director, but finally it was heard by Sri C.P. Sinha (respondent No. 6). He submitted his report dated 5.2.1972 (Annexure 6) to the President of the Board of Secondary Education. At that time, the President was Sri A.P. Srivastava (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 2, it appears, did not feel inclined to accept the report contained in Annexure 6 without further hearing the appeal himself.

Under his direction, therefore, the Secretary of the Board issued notice dated 4.4.1972 to the parties for appearing before the President for further hearing of the appeal on 20.4. 1972. The hearing was adjourned to 8.5.1972. The matter was heard by respondent No. 2 who passed an order (annexure 7) overruling the objection of respondent No.5 on the basis of two Bench decisions of this Court in Liladhar Jha v. Board of Secondary Education, Patna and Ajit Kumar Mukherjee alias A. K. Mukherjee V. The President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. It has been clearly pointed out in those cases that the final disposal of the appeal has to be made by the President, although, in the first instance, it may be heard by a person nominated by him. If the President agrees with the recommendation of the member hearing the appeal, he may not give any further hearing to the person concerned, but if he disagrees with him, rules of natural Justice would require the President to give a further hearing to the person concerned or give an op