JUDGMENT : B.N. Jha, J. 1. The only question to be decided in this writ application is whether the ORDER :passed by the President Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, (Annexure 22) on an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 322(5) of the Bihar Education Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") could be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ORDER :suffers from two infirmities, namely, (i) that is violative of the principles of natural justice because the President while passing this ORDER :did not hear the petitioner and (ii) that it proceeds on irrelevant considerations not germane to the enquiry. In my opinion, the contentions of learned counsel are well-founded and must be accepted. 2. Shri R.N. Lal, the permanent Principal of the Arrah Town Higher Secondary School retired on November 7, 1964. By way of stop-gap arrangement Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4, took charge as officiating Principal of the school. The post was subsequently advertised and applications were invited. The Managing Committee selected Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha for appointment as Principal but the District Education Officer, Shahabad, respondent no. 3, did not give his approval to this appointment under Rule 322(5) of the Code and directed the Managing Committee that the appointment should be made on fresh advertisement. He further observed that the Education Department was of the view that someone from the school staff itself should be appointed as Principal. It is not necessary to refer to various correspondences which took place between the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school and the District Education Officer in connection with the appointment of permanent Principal of the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Education Officer wanted that Shri Onkar Prasad should be appointed as Principal and for that purpose he was putting all obstacles in the way of appointment of some other persons as the Principal of the school. For the purposes of this writ application it is not necessary for me to make any observation in this connection. 3. As directed by the District Education Officer, fresh advertisement was made and the Managing Committee interviewed the candidates on July 22, 1967 in the school premises. Respondent no. 4 was also one of the candidates. For the purposes of this writ application it is not necessary for me to make any observation in this connection. 3. As directed by the District Education Officer, fresh advertisement was made and the Managing Committee interviewed the candidates on July 22, 1967 in the school premises. Respondent no. 4 was also one of the candidates. The Managing Committee prepared a panel of three persons in ORDER :of preference, namely, (i) Shri Anandpati Sahay, (ii) Shri M.M. Kant and (iii) Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha, all teachers of the school and forwarded the same with all relevant informations and documents to the District Education Officer on July 31, 1967. The case of the petitioner is that the Managing Committee considered fully the case of Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4 and Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha while making the recommendation for the post of Principal of the school. The letter of the Managing Committee dated August 16, 1967 (Annexure 6) to the District Education Officer, Shahabad, was sent on an enquiry from the District Education Officer as to whether a disciplinary action had been taken against Shri Onkar Prasad since his appointment as officiating Principal. From a perusal of his letter it appears that the allegations as made by the Managing Committee against Shri Onkar Prasad and in a subsequent letter by the Managing Committee to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Bihar dated September 6, 1967 (Annexure 10), are serious and if they are true, there could not be any denial of the fact that the Managing Committee was justified in excluding his name from the panel of the names prepared for appointment of the permanent Principal of the school. It also further appears that a proceeding had been started by the Managing Committee against Shri Onkar Prasad for various acts of omission, not necessary to be mentioned here, and after enquiry the Managing Committee found those charges correct. 4. On receipt of the recommendation of the Managing Committee, it is stated that the District Education Officer entered into unnecessary correspondence and enquiry and directed the Managing Committee to allow respondent no. 4 to continue as officiating Principal till the matter was decided by him. 4. On receipt of the recommendation of the Managing Committee, it is stated that the District Education Officer entered into unnecessary correspondence and enquiry and directed the Managing Committee to allow respondent no. 4 to continue as officiating Principal till the matter was decided by him. Though Rule 322(5) provided that District Education Officer has to give or refuse approval to the recommendation within fifteen days, he kept the matter pending and after a reminder by the Secretary of the Managing Committee he sent his disapproval by his letter dated November 1, 1967 (Annexure 24). The Secretary of the Managing Committee filed an appeal before the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, against the ORDER :of disapproval by the District Education Officer (Annexure 18). The entire memorandum of appeal was placed before me and it appears that the statement of facts mentions various facts and circumstances which resulted in the exclusion of the name of Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4 and Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha, from the panel of names, recommended by the Managing Committee for appointment to the post of Principal of the school. It is alleged by the petitioner that Shri Bhagwan Prasad, Secretary, Board of Secondary Education directed the Managing' Committee by his letter dated February 9, 1968 (Annexure 19) to maintain status quo during the pendency of the hearing of the appeal and that Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4 would continue as officiating Principal during this period. It is also stated in this letter that in spite of the direction of the District Education Officer, Shri Anandpati Sahay was allowed to join as Principal and thereby the Managing Committee has disobeyed the direction of the Department. The Secretary of the Managing Committee was directed by Shri Bhagwan Prasad by his letter (Annexure 21) dated April 19, 1968 to present himself with all relevant papers as mentioned in the letter in the office of the Board on April 27, 1968 for hearing in connection with the appeal. Shri Bhagwan Prasad, Secretary of the Board, heard the appeal and the Secretary of the Managing Committee submitted all his contentions in support of his appeal, Thereafter, the Secretary of the Board informed the petitioner by his letter dated August 12, 1968 that the President, Board of Secondary Education has directed that re-advertisement should be made for the appointment to the post of Principal. In the meantime, status quo would be maintained and Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4, will continue to act as officiating Principal of the school (vide Annexure 22). 5. It is clear from the foregoing facts that the President himself never heard the petitioner and the decision (Annexure 22) could not be regarded as his own independent decision in the matter of appeal. Rule 322(5) of the Code reads as follows:-- The Managing Committee shall submit a copy of the advertisement, the applications received with a tabular statement and its recommendations to the Sub-divisional Education Officer in the case of appointments of Assistant Teachers and to the District Education Officer in case of appointments of Headmaster/Principal, for approval. The District Education Officer or Sub-divisional Education Officer, as the case may be, shall send his approval within a fortnight of the receipt of the proposal. If he differs from the recommendations of the Managing Committee, he shall record in writing the reasons for his difference. While recommending, the Managing Committee shall submit three names for each post in ORDER :of preference recording reasons for preference. The Managing Committee may appeal to the District Education Officer in case of difference of opinion with the Sub-divisional Education Officer in the matters of appointments of Assistant Teachers and to the President, Board of Secondary Education through the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of difference of opinion with the District Education Officer for the appointments of Headmaster/Principal. The decision of the District Education Officer or the President, as the case may be, shall be final. A copy of the joining report of the teacher or the Headmaster/Principal is to be submitted to the approving authority within a month. In the matter of Principal, if the District Education Officer does not accord approval to the recommendation of the. Managing Committee, the Managing Committee has a right to move the President, Board of Secondary Education, in appeal and his decision shall be final. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the President, in the matter of appeal by the Managing Committee, is a quasi-judicial authority and has to act as such. In taking decision on the appeal, he has to hear the appellant in person and take decision in the matter himself. He cannot delegate his power to his Secretary in the matter of hearing of the appeal. In taking decision on the appeal, he has to hear the appellant in person and take decision in the matter himself. He cannot delegate his power to his Secretary in the matter of hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the President, while deciding the appeal acted in his administrative capacity and after perusing all relevant papers and enquiry made by the Secretary, he could pass an ORDER :on the appeal of the petitioner and it is not necessary that he should himself hear the petitioner. It is difficult for me to accept this contention on behalf of the respondents. The moment difference arises between the District Education Officer and the Managing Committee in the matter of appointment of the Principal lis starts and needs final decision on the appellate authority. Therefore, even assuming that it is administrative in nature, the enquiry is quasi-judicial and has to be made in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The rule provides that the decision of the President shall be final and that that decision, in my opinion, must be arrived at after fully hearing the parties interested in the decision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in (1) Brajlal Manilal and Co. V. Union of India and another (A.I.R. 1964 SC 1943) and on a decision of this Court in (2) M/s. Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. V. Superintendent of Central Excise, Ranchi and another (A.I.R. 1966 Pat 248). The law on this point has been very clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in (3) the Purtabpore Co. Ltd. V. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others [Civil Appeal No. 1464(N) of 1968, decided on November 21, 1968] and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to discuss the law on this subject. The law on this point has been very clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in (3) the Purtabpore Co. Ltd. V. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others [Civil Appeal No. 1464(N) of 1968, decided on November 21, 1968] and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to discuss the law on this subject. Suffice it to quote here the observation of Das, J. made in (4) Province of Bombay V. Kusaldas S. Advani and others [(1950) SCR 621 at Page 725] which was quoted with approval in the Purtabpore case which reads as follows:-- (i) that if a statute empowers an authority not being a court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other, there is a lis and prima facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. In view of the authorities and law on the point I am of the opinion that the enquiry before the Board of Secondary Education in the matter of appeal was a quasi judicial proceeding and the President was bound to hear the parties interested and thereafter decide the matter himself. On this ground alone, the ORDER :of the President (Annexure 22) has got to be struck down. 7. In view of my decision on the first point, it may not be necessary to consider the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner but since the matter was argued and it is of some importance. I propose to consider the matter briefly. The enquiry before the President was whether the Managing Committee had committed any irregularity or acted in breach of any provisions of the Code. I propose to consider the matter briefly. The enquiry before the President was whether the Managing Committee had committed any irregularity or acted in breach of any provisions of the Code. Under the provisions of Rule 322(4) the sole responsibility of appointment of teachers of a school lies with the Managing Committee, subject of course, to the approval of the authorities as laid down under Clause (5) of Rule 322 quoted above. The qualifications of teachers and Principals are laid down in Clause (2) of Rule 322. The candidates have got to be interviewed by the Managing Committee and, if necessary it shall in all cases give due weight to qualifications, teaching experience and efficiency of the candidates as provided in Clause (3) of this Rule. Therefore, the question before the appellate authority was whether the Managing Committee had taken into consideration the qualifications, teaching experience, efficiency of the candidates or not and whether the case of more suitable candidate had been overlooked. The ORDER :contained in Annexure 22 does not show that the decision of the Managing Committee was in utter disregard to the aforesaid considerations. The sole ground for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner appears to be that Shri Anand Pati Sahay was selected for the post of the Principal by the Managing Committee on July 22, 1967 and he was allowed to join on July 24, 1967 without approval of the authorities concerned. The other ground is that no action had been taken by the Managing Committee for acts of omission of Shri Onkar Prasad who acted as Principal from the year 1964. Therefore it also says that the Managing Committee did not obey the direction of the District Education Officer and allowed Shri Anand Pati Sahay to join as the Principal of the school, without approval of the authorities. 8. From the letter (Annexure 6) dated August 16, 1967, written to the District Education Officer by the Secretary of the Managing Committee and the letter (Annexure 10) dated September 6, 1967, written by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the ORDER :of the Secretary (Annexure 12) dated September 10, 1967, it is clear that the officiating Principal, respondent no. 4, was charged with different acts of omission and commission and he was also punished, though leniently. 4, was charged with different acts of omission and commission and he was also punished, though leniently. All these matters had been taken into consideration by the Managing Committee while excluding the name of respondent no. 4 from the panel being appointed as Principal of school. In spite of the proof and papers it is stated that there was no allegation of acts of omission against Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4. If the President would have heard the matter himself, no such error would have crept in while deciding the appeal. 9. The other ground mentioned in Annexure 22 is that the Managing Committee disobeyed the direction of the District Education Officer and of the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education. The powers of the District Education Officer in relation to aided schools are very limited. According to Rule 69 of the Code his powers of interference are limited to the supervision as to whether the accounts are correctly kept, the departmental regulations are strictly followed and the discipline is properly maintained. He is empowered to recommend for the dismissal or removal of any teacher with whose work he is dissatisfied or whose presence on the staff, he considers undesirable and to make such other recommendations with regard to the staff of the school, the constitution of the Managing Committee, the provision of suitable buildings etc. as may seem to him necessary. It is, however, for the Managing Committee to make an interim arrangement for the proper management of the school. The District Education Officer as well as the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education fully knew that there were serious allegations against Shri Onkar Prasad and the continuance of Shri Onkar Prasad as officiating Principal would hamper the discipline in the school, but still they made directions to the Managing Committee to allow Shri Onkar Prasad, respondent no. 4, to act as officiating Principal of the school. The matter of approval as to who should be selected from amongst the three names recommended by the Managing Committee pending before the District Education Officer and before the President, Board of Secondary Education and therefore, the direction of the District Education Officer as well as the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education was uncalled for at that stage. The matter of approval as to who should be selected from amongst the three names recommended by the Managing Committee pending before the District Education Officer and before the President, Board of Secondary Education and therefore, the direction of the District Education Officer as well as the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education was uncalled for at that stage. The disobedience of the aforesaid directions could not be the ground for dismissal of the appeal, although it may entail the petitioner to some punishment as provided in the Code. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Shri Anand Pati Sahay was senior to Shri Onkar Prasad. It is not for me in this writ application to decide as to who was senior or who was more suitable person for the appointment to the post of Principal. In my opinion, the decision contained in Annexure 22, as taken by the President, Board of Secondary Education, is contrary to the provisions of the Code and is violative of the principles of the natural justice and, therefore, it has got to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed, the ORDER :of the President, Board, of Secondary Education, Bihar, as contained in the letter of the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, dated August 12, 1961 (Annexure 22) is quashed and the President, Board of Secondary Education is directed to hear the appeal of the petitioner himself after giving full opportunity to the parties concerned. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.