ORDER The petitioner Oynam Birahari Singh, a dismissed teacher of the Raja Dumbra Singh High School, Imphal, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order for his re-instatement and promotion etc. of which he was deprived. 2. The petitioner as well as Opposite party No. 12 L. Chaoba Singh, were teachers in the private school known as Churachand High School at Imphal. There was a split in 1951 and another school which is now known as Raja Dumbra Singh High School was formed and the petitioner and Opp. party No. 12 also joined the newly formed school as teachers. That school is a public institution, but privately managed by a committee of which Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 12 are Secretary and members. It is a recognised school, affiliated to the University of Gauhati and receives aid from the Government (Administration of Manipur). One of the conditions of the said grant-in-aid is that the appointment, confirmation and dismissal of teachers must be approved, in the case of High Schools by the Inspector of Schools, and another condition says that the grant-in-aid is liable to be withdrawn for breach of any of the conditions. There are however no rules as regards the promotion or punishment of teachers or the mode of inflicting then as far as this school is concerned. 3. Briefly stated the facts are : In 1955 the Head Master of the School was sent for training and the Asstt. Head Master was appointed to officiate in his place. The question of appointing an officiating Asstt. Head Master then came up before the Managing Committee, and the tie appears to have been between the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 12. Both of them possess the same educational qualifications and joined the school on the same date. Their salaries are also the same, and I was told in the course of arguments that there being no rules on the subject, their seniority has not been fixed, and therefore it cannot be said who is senior to the other, though on behalf of the petitioner it was stated that he had joined the parent school much earlier and was getting a higher salary, when he left that job to join the newly formed school. 4. 4. The Managing Committee then appears to have decided for this purpose that both the teachers be asked to furnish the marks obtained by them in the degree examination, and the Secretary issued memos to them to furnish those marks. Instead of furnishing the marks the petitioner sent a sermonical reply through the Head Master, though the proper thing would have been to furnish the required information and then to represent the matter or to have awaited the result and then represented it tad the Committee decided to promote the other teacher after receipt of the mark-sheets. The reply was : "Letter No. S/12/55. Dated Imphal 1-7-55. To The Secretary, M.P. High School, Manipur. Through the Offg. Head Master. Ref : Your Memo No. 152/11/55 MP dated Imphal 27-6-55. Sir, I have the honour to state that by your Memo No. referred to above you have demanded from me my "Marks obtained in the degree examination" "in connection with the appointment of the officiating Asstt. Head Master". This has not a little surprised me as this is not only something new but a compliance to this demand of yours is derogatory to ones position and no less humiliating. I am accustomed to seeing that for the improvement of an institution chances are always given to old hands for their promotion and better emoluments rather than putting them to shame which can never be to any advantage for the betterment and progress of any institution much less of an educational institution. I think it is the capacity to teach and train, long experience and other analogous qualities that are considered to be the points that deserve maximum consideration in the appointment of a teacher. I have been in the teaching line for long many years; if I have been a complete failure as a teacher I might not be given, I admit, any chance of promotion but even then I ought surely to have been spared from any insult directly or indirectly. I have to be excused if I say that no School authority anywhere who really wants an efficient staff gives more premium to the marks obtained by a teacher in his degree examination than to his teaching capacity; because it is a universally admitted theory that "A good scholar does not necessarily make a good teacher". I have to be excused if I say that no School authority anywhere who really wants an efficient staff gives more premium to the marks obtained by a teacher in his degree examination than to his teaching capacity; because it is a universally admitted theory that "A good scholar does not necessarily make a good teacher". In view of the above noted points I beg to submit that I may be spared from having to submit "The marks obtained in the degree examination" and if any consideration is to be made at all then it may be so done keeping in view many other qualities that go to make an efficient teacher among which long experience, tact, teaching capacity for aught we know are some of the points of utmost consideration. I would be obliged by being informed by you kindly what might be the special grounds of your demanding the marks obtained in the present case over and above the general and ordinary procedure of appointment which have been always adopted so long. Yours faithfully, Dated Sd/-O. Birahari Singh Imphal, Asstt. teacher" The 1st July, 1955. 5. The Plead Master wrote him back thus : "Office of the Head Master, Manipur Public High School, Imphal. No. 165/XI/55/MP. From Head Master M, P. H. School, Imphal. To Shri O. Birahari Singh, Asstt. teacher, M.P. H. School. Sir, I am directed to inform you that the submission of marks obtained in the degree examination was the intention of the School Managing Committee and that the Secretary cannot go against it. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Y. Kulajit Singh, Offg. Headmaster, Manipur Public High School, Imphal. 2-7-56". 6. The petitioner retorted by his reply to the School Managing Committee, through the Secretary thus : "Letter No. S. 14/55. Dated, Imphal 7-7-55. Through The Secretary, To The School Managing Committee, M.P. High School, Imphal. Ref : Secretarys Memo No. 152/11/55 MP dated Imphal 27-6-55 and Offg. Hd. Masters No; 165/XI/55/MP dated 2-7-55. ______________ Sir, I have the honour most respectfully to state that in reply to the Secretarys Memo dated 27-6-55 referred to above, with the idea that any letter to the Secretary of any Educational Institution necessarily meant that it was being addressed to the School Managing Committee provided the letter was not a personal letter for the Secretary. But, I have been surprised by a letter from the Offg. But, I have been surprised by a letter from the Offg. Head Master dated 2-7-55 also referred to above, which without informing me anything in relation to the contents of my letter only tells me that it was "the intention of the committee" to insist on me to submit the marks obtained by me-in the degree examination. This is only redundant to tell anybody that the Secretary of an Educational Institution when working in matters like this conveys to an addressee only "the intention of the school committee" so it was to you, gentlemen, that my appended letter was virtually sent because the constitutional procedure so far I know, is to write to the Secretary who works as the spokesman and representative of the committee wherefore a letter of the kind sent by me on 1-7-55 was and cannot but be meant for the school committee concerned as this was no personal letter to the Secretary. And now, quite against all prevalent customs and procedures adopted in all educational institutions everywhere I have been indirectly asked and compelled to send my letter of 1-7-1955 straight to you and I hope you all will be so good as to enlighten me on the points that I have craved to know. A true copy of my letter (No. S. 12/55, dated Imphal 1-7-55) previously sent to the Secretary is now being sent to you - the members of the School Managing Committee, through the Secretary, Yours faithfully, Sd/- O. Birahari Singh, Asstt : teacher" 7. The petitioner was again reminded by the Head Master to furnish the marks, who also informed him that his letter dated 7-7-55 did not come through proper channel, and contained improper and unparliamentary words and he was directed to ask the petitioner to withdraw the same. 8. Instead of complying, the petitioner pressed for replies to his letters dated 1-7-53 and 7-7-55 and addressed another communication to the Secretary as regards the objection to the language etc. of the letter dated 7-7-55, the terms of which to say the least, were arrogant. It is reproduced below : "Letter No. S. 28/55. Dated Imphal 25-7-55. To The Secretary, M.P. High School, Imphal. Through the Offg. Head Master. Ref : Offg. Hd. of the letter dated 7-7-55, the terms of which to say the least, were arrogant. It is reproduced below : "Letter No. S. 28/55. Dated Imphal 25-7-55. To The Secretary, M.P. High School, Imphal. Through the Offg. Head Master. Ref : Offg. Hd. Master letter No. 175/1/55/M.P. dated 18-7-55 Sir, With reference to the letter under reference I beg to submit that the letter in question is suffering from a vagueness which requires clarification. Will you, therefore, be good enough to enlighten me on the following points so that I may be in a position to give a proper reply to the letter under reference. The following are the points in question :- 1. What is the "proper channel" alluded to by your letter ? I had the idea that the proper channel for negotiating for school matters would be with the Secretary of the School through whom the Executive Committee of the School works wherefore I, in response to the letter from the Secretary sent to me by Memo No. 152/11/55/M.P. dated 27-6-55 sent my reply to him by my letter No S. 12/55 dated 1-7-55, but without having the necessary reply to that from the Secretary I got a letter from the Offg. Head Master who be his letter No. 165/XI/55/Mp dated Imphal 2-7-55 informed this that the Secretary was helpless in not being able to go "against the intention of the School Managing Committee". As whatever any man has to say or write to in relation to an educational institution must necessarily be addressed to the School Committee and therefore to the Secretary who represents it I had to address to the Secretary first and when he went off the scene informing me through the Offg. Head Master that it was the School Committee which was responsible for what was happening it could have only one meaning that I had to address the School Committee direct and not to him, wherefore I addressed the School Committee through the Secretary although the Offg. Head Master seems to have been conducting the correspondence in the place of the Secretary. So the correspondences will show who has always tried to follow what is known every where as the proper channel. Head Master seems to have been conducting the correspondence in the place of the Secretary. So the correspondences will show who has always tried to follow what is known every where as the proper channel. Kindly also let me know what words have been considered as (ii) improper and (iii) unparliamentary and by whom so considered so that I may send the necessary letter withdrawing those words addressing the proper person or persons whom I might have caused pain without ever wishing it. I am ever ready to offer my sincere regret should I be convinced that I have actually used improper words because impropriety can never be the boast of any gentleman far less so of a teacher on whom rests the responsibility of teaching the children not only lessons from books but best of manners, courtesies and good breeding. Lastly - the question of withdrawal of my application does not arise because what the heads of the institution seem to be concerned with is not my application but only some words used in a letter of mine wherefore it is not the application which I may be required to withdraw but only some words to the use of which objection have been taken. Kindly let me know if I am to understand that the Offg. Head Master is the spokesman of the school managing committee and not the secretary as is the custom everywhere - and if one would be wrong should one, wanting to reach ones letters petitions and representations to the school committee addressed the Secretary for that purpose and if one would be following the "proper channel" if only one addressed the Offg. Head Master for all matters and purposes. Yours faithfully, Dated, Imphal, Sd/- O. Birahari Singh" the 25th July, 1955. 9. At long last when the petitioner remained adamant and failed to furnish the marks the School Committee, gave the promotion to the other teacher, and the petitioner preferred a representation to the Inspector of Schools against it, which was also not couched in proper terms and his statement in it, which is reproduced below goes to show clearly that he had wilfully disobeyed the order to furnish marks : "To The Inspector of Schools, Manipur. Through the Secretary, Raja Dumbra Singh High School, Imphal. Through the Secretary, Raja Dumbra Singh High School, Imphal. Subject : Representation of Oinam Birahari Singh, Assistant teacher, R.D.S. High School, Imphal relating to the appointments of the Asstt. Head Master and the Offg. Asstt. Head Master . Sir, The humble petitioner begs most respectfully to bring the following to your knowledge and hopes and prays that you will take early steps to redress the bona fide grievances of this humble petitioner and cause proper justice to be made to him. The present Raja Dumbra Singh High School sprang up from the Churachand High School in the year, 1950. This School was enlivened and strengthened by 8 experienced teachers who resigned from their services in the C. C. High School. The Secretary of this School promised that the privileges of the Churachand High School which the said teachers had been enjoying there would be given to them. Thus the Head Master of this School, who is also an ex-officio member of the school committee having been directed by the Secretary, counted the previous respective service years of these 8 teachers in Churachand High School. Accordingly all the annual pay increments of these 8 teachers for their period of service in C. C. School were distributed among them to bring up to the scale of pay enjoyed by them in the former school. The special allowances which were given to the said teachers excepting the Head Master who enjoyed a different scale are on the basis of those annual pay increments of their previous service years in the original school as will be found in the acquittance roll. The present petitioner had 8 years of service behind him, Sri Yumlembam Kulajit Singh had about 6 years and Sri Lairikyengbam Chaoba Singh had about 4 years of service to count. But all these three teachers had been given the same amount and grade of pay although the petitioner was the senior most among these three and had been working with higher pay in the former school. In view of these facts this petitioner has the foremost claim and deserves first consideration in matters of promotion and better emoluments. On the occasion of appointment of the assistant Head Master of this School Sri Y. Kulajit Singh had been allowed to supersede this petitioner without following any justifiable principle. In view of these facts this petitioner has the foremost claim and deserves first consideration in matters of promotion and better emoluments. On the occasion of appointment of the assistant Head Master of this School Sri Y. Kulajit Singh had been allowed to supersede this petitioner without following any justifiable principle. The majority of the teachers appealed to the school committee requesting it to follow and take into consideration the question of seniority but the committee flouted the opinion of the majority of the teachers outright. This petitioner then submitted an appeal to the school committee, himself, on 24-2-52 for consideration of his superior claim but it was rejected relying on a report of the Head Master which neither took into count the previous period of service in the former school as promised and declared, nor explained the source or reason of the special allowances given to the said teachers and the Head Masters report contained a false explanation regarding the difference of pay between Sri Amulaya Ratan Saha and Sri K. Nimai Singh. Again, the Head Master having gone for B. T. training Sri Y. Kulajit Singh was appointed as the Offg. Head Master and now Sri L. Chaoba Singh not having half of the experience of this petitioner in any respect was promoted to the post of the Offg. Asstt. Head Master. The committee wanted production of mark sheets obtained by Sri L. Chaoba Singh and by the petitioner in their degree examination. Sri L. Chaoba Singh complied with the demand of the committee. But the petitioner thought it is likely that he may have secured more marks yet naturally thought it beneath dignity to yield to such a peculiar demand never heard of any time in the case of a promotion. Thereafter the petitioner did not produce his marks. It was this petitioner and not Sri L. Chaoba Singh who had been carrying on the duties of the Head Master in the temporary absences of both the Head Master and the Asstt. Head Master. Thereafter the petitioner did not produce his marks. It was this petitioner and not Sri L. Chaoba Singh who had been carrying on the duties of the Head Master in the temporary absences of both the Head Master and the Asstt. Head Master. But the question of seniority, of efficiency in teaching, capacity for administrative work, regularity, popularity, integrity, tact and, in fact, all that go to make a really good teacher and the qualifications that, in the eye and consideration of all educational authorities of the world are regarded as points of primary consideration to the appointment of a teacher were, most bluntly, given the go-bye, the committee not oven caring to give out any whys and wherefores for their novel decision. The school committee has not thought it worthwhile to assess any value or give any consideration to the opinions and suggestions given by the Government nominee nor those of the teachers representative both of whom are members of the said committee. Riding roughshod the committee or, for matter of that, the secretary who happens to be the committee, has steered clear of whatever obstacles or oppositions, (right or wrong) might have come in the way. And petitions, appeals or representations however strong, reasonable or logical have been thrown over board without even a discussion in the committee or even an acknowledgment made to the poor petitioner or appellant of their receipts. Thus this humble petitioner submitted different applications (true copies appended hereto) dated the 1st July, 1955, 7th July, 1955 to the Managing Committee, but those petitions have not yet had the luck, the petitioner understands, of being just submitted before the school committee although there have been many a meeting of the school committee after submission of the applications in question. Failing to get any reply by applying to the committee direct, this petitioner next submitted an application dated the 25th July, 1955 appended hereto through the Offg. Head Master, who, instead of the Secretary, had been carrying on the correspondence later on but even that still remains un-replied to. Thus the petitioner thinks that cross injustice has been done once again by the School Committee in making the recent appointment of the Offg. Asstt. Head Master, who, instead of the Secretary, had been carrying on the correspondence later on but even that still remains un-replied to. Thus the petitioner thinks that cross injustice has been done once again by the School Committee in making the recent appointment of the Offg. Asstt. Head Master by following neither any principle of law, justice or equity nor the traditional procedure which were being adopted always as is also done by all educational institutions here or abroad. In the circumstances stated above the humble petitioner prays that you will be good enough to take all necessary and adequate steps and get the bona fide and legitimate grievances of this petitioner redressed as soon as possible and for this act of kindness the petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Yours faithfully, Dated Imphal, The 28th Sd/- Oynam Birahari Singh, Septr., 55. Asstt. Teacher, R. D. S. High School, Imphal, Manipur" 10. The committee refused to forward the representation, but the petitioner had already submitted an advance copy direct to the Inspector of Schools. 11. The committee then framed charges against the petitioner for disciplinary action for disobeying the order to furnish marks, for not submitting applications through the proper channel, for refusing to withdraw the application dated 7-7-55 and for using intemperate language and casting aspersions against the committee and thereby defaming it (see document No. 12 of the petitioner). The petitioner was asked to explain and show cause why he should not be dismissed. It is pertinent to note that this was done after he had been repeatedly asked to withdraw the applications. 12. The reply given by the petitioner was one of denial and goes to show that he stuck to the position that he was in the right (see document No. 13 of the petitioner). The committee being dissatisfied with this reply or explanation passed an order dated 18-10-55 suspending the petitioner and asked him to submit a further explanation and also directed that he should appear in person to explain matters. To this the reply of the petitioner was that he had already submitted his explanation and was unable to understand what further explanation was required, and asked for enlightenment of the point. He also preferred an appeal to the Inspector of Schools, against his suspension etc. 13. To this the reply of the petitioner was that he had already submitted his explanation and was unable to understand what further explanation was required, and asked for enlightenment of the point. He also preferred an appeal to the Inspector of Schools, against his suspension etc. 13. The committee then by their order dated 27-10-55 reduced the pay of the petitioner by two stages for a period of six months. That order is reproduced below : "Order No. 22/RDH/Or/1/55. Dated 27-10-55. ________________ Sri O. Birahari Singh. You are hereby informed that your explanation dated 23-10-55 was considered and the committee found it unsatisfactory. However it being your first offence the committee desires to deal with leniently and it has been decided that your pay will be reduced to two (2) steps with retrospective effect from 19th Oct. 55 for 6 (six) months for observation and you are allowed to resume your work from the 3rd Nov. 55 at the reduced pay. Sd/- Y. Gourmani Singh, D/- 27-10-55. Secretary, Raja Dumbra Singh High School Imphai" 14. A copy of the Resolution withholding the representation dated 28-9-55 and the appeal dated 24-10-55, was also forwarded to the Inspector of Schools. The petitioner also followed up the order reducing his pay by an appeal to the Inspector of Schools, this time it appears, directly to the said officer and intimated the Secretary about it and asked for stay of all further proceedings till the decision of the said appeal. 15. It appears the petitioner had not in the meantime accepted his salary and on 7-11-55 an order was passed and conveyed to the petitioner that he should accept payment of his arrears of salary as per reduced rate within two days, otherwise he would be dealt with severely. The petitioner replied that he can take his pay at the reduced rate provided it will not affect the disposal of his appeal pending with the Inspector of Schools. This was obviously unnecessary, as in the circumstances his receiving payment at the reduced rate, could never be taken as meaning that he gave up the appeal. The committee replied that he should carry out orders. Even then the petitioner did not take payment and wrote back that unless he was allowed to take the salary on the said condition, that is, it will not affect his appeal, he was not prepared to accept payment. The committee replied that he should carry out orders. Even then the petitioner did not take payment and wrote back that unless he was allowed to take the salary on the said condition, that is, it will not affect his appeal, he was not prepared to accept payment. I have already said that this was unnecessary, and must have been plain to the petitioner and his advisers whose argumentative capacities as disclosed in the correspondence already referred to, were of no mean order. One cannot therefore escape the irresistable conclusion, that the efforts of the petitioner were directed at making the committee to eat the humble pie and not that he had any real difficulty or fear on that score. 16. On 26-10-1955, the committee passed the following resolution : "An extract copy of Resolution No. 4 of the meeting of Raja Dumbra Singh High School Managing Committee held on 26-10-55. 4. Resolved that if any one of the staff wants to lodge a complaint against the decision of the committee he must take leave of the committee beforehand. If any one acts in contravention to this resolution, serious disciplinary actions will be taken. A copy of this resolution be given to each of the, staff and his acknowledgment be recorded. Copy to Sri for information. I have noted the above copy of resolution and understood it. Signature of Sd/- O. Birahari Singh teacher. 1-11-55" and the petitioner was also informed of it on 1-11-55 and acknowledged it under his signature. 17. On 30-11-55, the committee again framed two charges against the petitioner (see Document. No. 30 of the petitioner). The first was that in view of the said resolution, the petitioner should have either withdrawn his representations and appeal to the Inspector of Schools, or sought permission for presenting them. The second was as regards the disobedience of the order to receive the arrears of salary. He was asked to show cause, and why he should not be dismissed on each of those counts. He was asked to submit his explanation, which he did on 2-12-1955. The gist of that explanation was that the first charge was not tenable, because his petitions had been filed before he was informed of the resolution mentioned in para 16 above and there was no direction that it will affect pending; representations or that permission was necessary to prosecute them. The gist of that explanation was that the first charge was not tenable, because his petitions had been filed before he was informed of the resolution mentioned in para 16 above and there was no direction that it will affect pending; representations or that permission was necessary to prosecute them. As regards the second charge he contended that he was not to be blamed, as the committee did not agree to the condition proposed by him. 18. On 8-1-56 the committee by their resolution No. 2 decided that since the petitioner was not carrying out their order he be asked to resign and on failure to do so he be dismissed from 16-1-56, and accordingly on 9-1-56, the petitioner was informed that his refusal to accept salary in-spite of repeated warnings, amounted to grave disobedience of the orders of the committee, and therefore he was directed to resign by 15-1-1956, and on failure to do so drastic action would be taken against him. The omission to mention the other charge inclines one to the view that, that charge was dropped or not pressed. 19. The Inspector of Schools by his memo dated 11-1-1956, intimated the committee that the-punishment of reduction of pay was too harsh for a first offence, and suggested that a severe warning should have done as it would also have had a better effect. He therefore requested that the matter be reviewed, in the light of his observations. On 14-1-1956, the petitioner also wrote to the Secretary that he had no desire to disobey the committee, and in view of what the Inspector of Schools had written, he was willing to receive the amount of pay. On 16-1-1956, he wrote to the Secretary in reply to his letter dated 9-1-56 asking him to resign. The reply was in these terms : "To The Secretary, Raja Dumbra Singh High School, Imphal. Through the offg. Head Master. Ref : No. 274/RDH/T/1/56 dated Imphal, the 9th January, 1956. ________________ Sir, Reference above, I have the honour to state that the committees finding in concern with my not taking reduced pay and thereby amounting to disobedience of the order of the committee does not agree with the merit of my case. I know well that the Inspector of Schools has requested the committee to review the order of the committee involving my case of reduced pay. I know well that the Inspector of Schools has requested the committee to review the order of the committee involving my case of reduced pay. Before a final decision of my case by the Inspector with the result of your review, I am not in a position to take my reduced pay. And in the meantime, I request that your order calling for my resignation and on failure, to take drastic action against me be kindly stayed till final disposal of my case by the Inspector. Dated, Imphal, Yours faithfully, the 16th January, 1956. Sd/- O. Birahari Singh, Asstt. teacher, R.D.S. High School, Imphal. 20. It is thus obvious that the petitioner was managing to get the information of what was happening and knew about the recommendation of the Inspector of Schools and the decision embodied in Resolution No. 2. His offer to accept the pay thus came after the committee had already decided to impose the punishment by resolution No. 2. 21. Since he failed to resign, the Secretary conveyed to him the order of dismissal as per Resolution No. 2 on 16-1-1956, and the petitioner ceased to work from that date. He then preferred an appeal to the Inspector of Schools, and also petitioned the Adviser, incharge of Education. 22. The committee also approached the Inspector of Schools for approval of the order for dismissal as per terms governing the grant-in-aid. 23. The Inspector wrote back to the committee that they could not pass the order of dismissal without his approval, and it was irregular to have passed this order imposing further punishment when the previous appeal was pending. He also protested against the supersession of the petitioner, and characterized promotion on the basis of marks as a decision based on a defective principle. In his opinion a severe warning was quite enough and he directed that the petitioner be re-instated without reduction of pay, (see document No. 43 of the petitioner). He also forwarded a copy of it to the Government, under the following endorsement : "For information and necessary action. If the School Committee does not carry out the instruction given in the last para of my letter, grant-in-aid to the School should be withdrawn as a preliminary step". 24. He also forwarded a copy of it to the petitioner, to which course a not unjustified objection was raised on behalf of the committee. If the School Committee does not carry out the instruction given in the last para of my letter, grant-in-aid to the School should be withdrawn as a preliminary step". 24. He also forwarded a copy of it to the petitioner, to which course a not unjustified objection was raised on behalf of the committee. He also mentioned in the said letter, that a teacher had a right of appeal to the Departmental authorities, but the parties could not produce, even though they were asked to do so, any Rules or Regulations in support of it. The conditions of the grant-in-aid to which I have already referred also do not support any such view. They only go to show that if any condition of the grant-in-aid is broken, the Government might withdraw the grant. But that is a different matter, and does not import that a dismissal will be uneffective, or can be set aside by the Government. To use a different language it only means, that if the committee dismisses a teacher without such approval they might loose the grant, but not that the dismissal will not be effective as between the teacher and the committee. In the absence of any Rules it is also difficult to accept the contention that an appeal would lie to the Inspector of Schools against any such order of the committee in the accepted sense of the word "appeal". The Govt. might use its persuasive force, or the coercive power under the grant-in-aid rules and thereby compel the committee to come round to its view, but that, it might be repeated, is another matter. 25. The committee wrote back to the Inspector of Schools, giving reasons at length, and requested that he may reconsider the matter and give his approval to the dismissal (document No. 9 of opposite party). The Assistant Secretary to the Government also conveyed to the Inspector of Schools, the Governments decision which was that neither the petitioner nor the Inspector had adduced a single good reason why the order of dismissal was bad, and there was thus no case for interference. The letter also made the position of the authorities vis-a-vis the committee clear in the same terms as already stated in para 24 above (see document No. 8 of the opp. party). 26. The letter also made the position of the authorities vis-a-vis the committee clear in the same terms as already stated in para 24 above (see document No. 8 of the opp. party). 26. After this the then Inspector of Schools was succeeded by another officer, who took up the matter and gave the petitioner a chance to end up the whole matter by offering an apology to the committee. That letter was : "Government of Manipur Education Office : Manipur. _______________ Memo No. IS/3-XXI/52/83. Dated Imphal, the 17th Feby., 1956. To, Shri O. Birahari Singh. In supersession of the orders issued to you dismissing you from service with effect from the afternoon of 16th Jan., 1956 vide Committee Resolution No. 2 dated 8-1-56 the Committee decided to reconsider the case and to issue fresh orders. In case you are prepared to express an unconditional apology to the committee for the improper conduct for which charges have been framed against you, the committee will be prepared to consider your reinstatement after stopping increment for such period as the committee think reasonable and proper and in that case you should submit to the committee a written apology on or before 20-2-56. In case you are not prepared to submit an unconditional apology you are required to show cause in writing before 20-2-56 why you should not be dismissed from service and P. F. contribution by the school authority should not be withheld. Sd/- L. Manihar Singh, Inspector of Schools, Manipur. __________________ Memo No. IS/3-XXI/52/83. Dated Imphal, the 17th Feby., 1956. Copy to: 1. The Secretary, Raja Dumbra Singh High School for information. Sd/- L.M. Singh, Inspector of Schools, Manipur." 27. But the petitioner did not comply and his reply reproduced below speaks for itself : "From : O. Birahari Singh, teacher of Raja Dumbra Singh High School, now under dismissal. To, The Inspector of Schools, Manipur Sir, Reference your Memo No. 15/3-XXI/52/83 dated the 17th February, 1956, I have the honour to inform that I cannot follow the merit of the above memo in continuation of the Inspectors finding passed in 15/3-XXI/52 dated Imphal, the 30th January, 1956, a copy of which was given to me. The Inspector expressed his opinion (?) the above memo no. The Inspector expressed his opinion (?) the above memo no. of 30-1-56 reading as "The teacher Shri U. Birahari Singh should therefore be reinstated without reduction of pay." I cannot follow the procedure when the Inspector of Schools passed his opinion to reinstate the teacher without reduction of pay and again the Inspector should call for an apology or to show cause for why he should not be dismissed. The very strange point is that I cannot understand how the matter has again come before the Inspector when the only question now remaining is whether the committee will reinstate the teacher or not and nothing is left. So, it is not necessary for me to go to the committee with an apology or to show cause etc. as I (?) already filed an appeal against the order of dismissal and the Inspector passed the above order on the 30-1-56. I simply want to know whether the committee is willing to reinstate me according to the order of the Inspector or not. And I hope you will kindly let me know the opinion of the Committee on the above view. Yours faithfully, Dated, Imphaj, the 21st Feb., 56, Sd/- O. Birahari Singh, Kwakeithel, Akham Leikai, Imphal, Manipur." 28. The Inspector of Schools then conveyed his approval to the order of dismissal of the petitioner, and there can be no doubt that he was entitled to do so on a review of the whole position, as the same was open to his predecessor. In fact the committee had already approached him for it the Government whose subordinate the Inspector of Schools is, could also give such a direction, and by the letter of the Assistant Secretary the decision of the previous Inspector was already set aside. The decision of the previous Inspector cannot be therefore held up as a shield by anybody. 29. From the facts already stated it will be clear that the Managing Committee of the School is in the position of Appellant "domestic" tribunal, and that position was also not disputed by any one. The decision of the previous Inspector cannot be therefore held up as a shield by anybody. 29. From the facts already stated it will be clear that the Managing Committee of the School is in the position of Appellant "domestic" tribunal, and that position was also not disputed by any one. Now it is well settled that the decision of Appellant "domestic" tribunal can be interfered with by the court under Art. 226 only when the tribunal had no jurisdiction, or it did not follow the principles of natural justice, or did not act in good faith or did not act according to its own rules, i.e., acted in a manner ultra vires. 30. It ,must also, be remembered that "domestic" tribunals differ from the courts of justice in some important respects. In a court the accused person ,s entitled to be tried only on the basis of evidence which is adduced and is admissible according to law. He has a right to be represented by a counsel. But a "domestic" tribunal which is generally composed of laymen does not have the power to administer oath or compel the attendance of witnesses. Nor is such a body bound by any rules of evidence. It is therefore entitled to act on hearsay and even personal knowledge. Counsel cannot appear before it. It therefore follows that the decision of such a tribunal cannot be attacked on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence nor are legal objections permissible, which can be raised against decisions of courts of justice. It also follows that when a decision of a "domestic" tribunal comes before a court of justice the latter cannot sit over it as a court of appeal, either as regards the finding or the sentence. 31. What therefore remains to be examined is thus, whether any or more of the grounds stated, by me in para 29 is or are present in this case. 32. In the petition the petitioner tried to attack the very constitution of the committee but that point was not pressed in the arguments and nothing else has been shown, which would oust the jurisdiction of the committee in such matters. In fact the court will not grant a writ against a usurper, for obvious reasons. Admittedly there are no rules and the question of the committee acting in an ultra vires manner does not arise. In fact the court will not grant a writ against a usurper, for obvious reasons. Admittedly there are no rules and the question of the committee acting in an ultra vires manner does not arise. 33. Thus we are left with the only question whether the committee acted against the principles, of natural justice or acted in a mala fide way. In tact this was the only point on which stress was laid by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 34. It was urged that the fact that the committee instead of going into the merits wanted to decide the question of promotion on the basis of marks obtained at the B. A. examination showed that they had made up their mind to somehow or other give the said promotion to the other man and that showed that the committee acted with bad faith or acted in a way which was mala fide. The argument cannot bear any close examination. There is nothing to show that the committee had decided that the question of promotion will be decided on the basis of marks only; and for all we know it might have only been one of the things to be taken into consideration for the purpose. Again it was not known who had obtained more marks and petitioners own statement in his document No. 9 which has already been quoted elsewhere goes to show that he considered that he had got more marks and his point was that it was below his dignity to submit to the order for furnishing marks. It is therefore not known what the decision would have been had the petitioner submitted the marks. This conduct on the part of the petitioner thus goes to show that he wanted to dictate his own terms to the committee, a rather not a very happy attitude for a subordinate to take. 35. The question of promotion is within the power and discretion of the superior authority and is not justiciable, unless the question is decided in contravention of the provisions of some specific rules. In the present case there are no such rules, and it will be hardly disputed that promotion cannot automatically go by seniority. Merit general suitability etc. 35. The question of promotion is within the power and discretion of the superior authority and is not justiciable, unless the question is decided in contravention of the provisions of some specific rules. In the present case there are no such rules, and it will be hardly disputed that promotion cannot automatically go by seniority. Merit general suitability etc. are some of the matters which have to be taken into consideration and none else except the promoting authority can be the best judge of if. 36. There was thus absolutely no justification for the petitioner, not to have complied with the demand for marks. It will be seen from what has already been stated that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner was also one of defiance and insubordination, and the language and arguments used and aspersions cast in the subsequent replies were uncalled for and cannot be allowed to go unnoticed, if any office or institution is to maintain discipline to any extent. Inspite of all this the punishment imposed, namely, of reduction of pay by two stages only for a period of six months, erred on the side of leniency, and that also goes to show that the committee was neither vindictive nor wanted to act with bad faith. 37. After that also he consistently refused to carry out the order of the committee as regards pay, and again wanted to dictate his own terms, without there being any necessity for them and finally did not carry out that order also. Inspite of all this he was again given a chance to make amends by tendering an apology. But he refused that also, and maintained his position thus leaving no other course to the Inspector but to give his approval and the committee to stick to the decision of dismissal. Thus the whole conduct of the petitioner shows that he is not amenable to any discipline, and if the committee do not want to retain such a hand, in a public institution in which teachers should be models of discipline, no fault can be found with them. Thus no case of want of good faith or failure to follow principles of natural justice has been made out. 38. Thus no case of want of good faith or failure to follow principles of natural justice has been made out. 38. It was also urged that the punishment of dismissal for non-compliance of the order to receive arrears of pay was too harsh, when the previous lapses had been already punished by reduction of pay. But the argument does not have much force, when the subsequent lapse was a deliberate one without any cause and came in the wake, rather inspite of that punishment. In any case, this court will not go into the question of punishment, as an appellate court might do in a proceeding under Art. 226. The matter was a matter purely within the discretion of the Managing Committee. 39. On behalf of the opposite parties it was also contended that this petition was not maintainable because no demand was made. But a demand is not an absolute legal necessity before a petition for a writ under Art. 226 can be entertained, see Moti Lal v. Govt. of State of U.P., AIR 1951 All 257 (A), a Full Bench case. 40. The result is that this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 50/- for each set of opposite party. Application dismissed.