Judgment S.Anwar Ahmad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order of the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, dated the 20th August, 1971 (Annexure 1) by which he set aside the election of the Managing Commitee of the Dharichhan Pandey High School, Hussaini, and his consequential order appointing a new ad hoc Managing Committee of the school (Annexure 2). 2. Under Rule 3 of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, as amended by the State Legislature in 1967, the Managing Committee of the aforesaid High School was constilufed. Being aggrieved with the constitution of the Managing Committee, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to this application approached the President of the Board of Secondary Education under Rule 40 of the above Bules for setting aside the appointment, selection and co-option of the members and office bearers of the Committee. Rule 40 runs as follows:- - "40. If any dispute arises whether any person has been duly declared, elected, selected or co-opted as, or is entitled to be a donor, life-member, hereditary member, President, Secretary, or a member of the Managing Committee, as the case may be, the matter shall be referred to the President of the Board of Secondary Education whose decision thereon shall be final." After due notice to the persons concerned, the matter was finally heard on the 15th June, 1971, by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, instead of the President, Board of Secondary Education. 3 Objection was raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the powers under Rule 40 of the aforesaid Rules could only be exercised by the President and not by any body else and as such the hearing of the matter should be before the President and riot before the Secretary. The objection was, however, overruled. It is admitted that the entire matter was heard before the Secretary and thereafter a letter dated the 20th August, .1971, containing the order was issued under the signature of the President. The decision arrived at under the signature of the President has not been challenged before me on merits. 4. The only point urged before me is that as Rule 40 envisages the decision of the President of the Board of Secondary Education, it is the President who should have heard the parties on the disputed issues. The decision arrived at under the signature of the President has not been challenged before me on merits. 4. The only point urged before me is that as Rule 40 envisages the decision of the President of the Board of Secondary Education, it is the President who should have heard the parties on the disputed issues. But so far as the present application is concerned, the various aspects of the case were placed by the parties not before the President but before the Secretary. The word decision appearing in Rule 40 must be interpreted in its ordinary dictionary meaning. The meaning of the word decision has been given in Blacks Law Dictionary as follows:- - "A judgment or decree pronounced by a Court in settlement of a controversy submitted to it and by way of authoritative answer to the questions raised before it. A judgment given by a competent tribunal". It necessarily follows:-- therefore, that the parties must be hoard by a Court or person competent to decide the matter in controversy. It is agreed before me that although the order was issued under the signature of the President of the Board of Secondary Education, the President did not hear the parties. The parties were actually heard by the Secretary of the Board. It may he that the order passed under the signature of the President was drawn up on the basis of the report made to him by the Secretary but, to my mind, that does not solve the problem. Unless the President himself had heard the parties, applied his mind to the matter in controversy and finally decided it himself, it cannot be said that he had decided the matter. Moreover, as already stated, Rule 40 authorises only the President and no one else. In this view of the matter, the order dated the 20th August, 1973, contained in Annexire 1, must be held to be void and of no legal effect; in fact non est. It is accordingly quashed. 5 In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated the 20th August, 1971, contained in Annexure 1 is quashed. In this view of the matter, the order dated the 20th August, 1973, contained in Annexire 1, must be held to be void and of no legal effect; in fact non est. It is accordingly quashed. 5 In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated the 20th August, 1971, contained in Annexure 1 is quashed. The matter, however, is sent back to the President of the Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, who, after giving notice to the parties, would hear them as early as possible and pass such order or orders which seems to him just and proper in the circumstances of the case. I should not be misunderstood as saying that I have expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim put forth by the parties with reference to Rule 40.