An order of suspension made against the headmaster of a minority institution under Rule 12 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Special Rules for Management of Secondary Schools Established and Run by Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society/Subsidiary Trust or their Successors in Law, in the State of West Bengal, 1974) could not validly exist and continue against the headmaster after the Board's Section 24 Committee disapproved the order of suspension.

( 1 ) AN order of suspension dated 8 September, 2003 (reference No. GB/44/03) issued against the writ petitioner herein, chandan Kr. Singh, by the Secretary on behalf of the governing body of the founder body of Diocese of Barrackpore is essentially under challenge in this writ application.

( 2 ) BY virtue of the said order of suspension the petitioner has still remained suspended and has not been able to discharge his duties as the headmaster of C. M. S. St. John's High School, at Krishnagar, in the District of Nadia. ever since though the said order of suspension was not approved "by the Comittee constituted under section 24 of the west Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act 1963" and though the concerned district Inspector of Schools informed the Secretary of the said C. M. S. St. John's High School, at Krishnagar, (hereinafter referred to as the said school) that the petitioner. Chandan Kr. Singh should be allowed to join "his duty and act as per order of the Secretary, West bengal Board of Secondary Education" meaning thereby the said order of disapproval of the said order of suspension against the petitioner of the said section 24 Committee dated 9 February 2004.

( 3 ) WHEN the present writ petition was first moved an interim order was made by this Court on 23 December 2003 to protect the interest of the petitioner and by virtue of the said interim order the school authority was restrained from dismissing the petitioner from his post of the headmaster of the said school or rather prohibited from adopting any resolution for dismissing the petitioner from his headmastership of the said school.

( 4 ) AFTER the above interim order the petitioner made an application on the basis of some subsequent events that took place after the initiation of the writ proceeding for a direction upon the school authority that the petitioner should be allowed to resume his duty as the headmaster of the said school as before. In the said application the petitioner, in fact, relied on the said order of disapproval of the said section 24 Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated 9 February 2004 whereby the said committee by its resolution decided not to approve the said order of suspension against the petitioner herein.

( 5 ) NEEDLESS to mention that the said order of disapproval of the said section 24 Committee was made on 9 January 2004 after the writ petitioner initiated the writ proceeding and obtained the said interim order in his favour on 23 December 2003.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel Dr. D. P. Majumdar, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, said with much emphasis that in any event since the Board or rather the said section 24 Committee decided at its meeting held by it on 9 January 2004 not to approve the said order or rather the proposal of suspension of the petitioner and since the said order of suspension, in fact, was not approved by the said Committee the said order of suspension dated 8 September 2003 of the authority, namely the said governing body could not survive any longer and since the said order of suspension lost its legal existence by virtue of the said order of disapproval of the said Committee the petitioner was entitled to join the school and should have been allowed to resume his duty by the authority of the said school as the headmaster of the school in questior and that according to Dr. Majumdar and is the most natural and probable consequence of the said order of disapproval of the said committee.

( 7 ) IN his submission Dr. Majumdar also pointed out that since the school authority did not or rather failed to draw any proceeding against the petitioner, the said order of suspension stood automatically withdrawn in the first place in terms of the provisions of the said sub-Rule 9 (VIIa)of Rule 28 of the management of recognized non-government institution (aided and unaided) Rules 1969.

( 8 ) NEEDLESS to mention that Dr. Majumdar also argued that the present case was squar