JUDGMENT Madan Mohan Prasad, J. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of quashing an order passed by the President of the Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, up holding the election of representatives of the guardians as members of the Managing Committee of a school. 2. It is said that the constitution of the Managing Committee of the P. N. Anglo Sanskrit School, was being made in the year 1971, and, the teachers' representative had to be appointed by the Head Master. The Head Master of the aforesaid, school adopted a partisan attitude, and appointed one Tirthanand Mishra, who was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner drew the attention of the Subdivisional Education Officer to the fact that he was the senior most teacher that year and ought to have been appointed the teachers' representative. As a result of this, the Subdivisional Education Officer wrote to the Head Master, saying that the petitioner was the senior most teacher to be appointed that year as teachers' representative in the Managing Committee. The Head Master, however, did not act thereupon. A meeting for the election of the guardians' representatives to the Managing Committee was held on the 18th of May, 1971, at which the aforesaid Tirthanand Mishra was present as the teachers' representative, and the petitioner, though entitled to be so appointed, was kept away. As a result, two guardians were selected, namely, Jangli Mahto and Narendra Prasad, respondent no. 4. Thereafter, the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee were also elected on the 29th June, 1971. The petitioner then filed an application under rule 40 of the Bihar High School Managing Committee (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be called the rules) challenging the constitution of the Managing Committee. The Board passed an order on the 10th of May, 1973 (Annexure-6) setting aside the constitution of the Managing Committee on the ground, that, the appointment of Tirthanand Mishra as a teachers' representative and his participation in the election was illegal. The Board, however, held that the selection of the guardians' representative was not invalidated by the fact, that, the correct teachers' representative was not there, such a representative having no right to participate in the voting, and being merely in the postion of an observer. The Board, however, held that the selection of the guardians' representative was not invalidated by the fact, that, the correct teachers' representative was not there, such a representative having no right to participate in the voting, and being merely in the postion of an observer. A letter was sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Board on the 11th of December, 1973, intimating that the objection to the selection of the guardians' representative was rejected (Annexure-10). Hence, the petitioner has come up for quashing that part of the' order Annexure- 6, by which it has been held that the guardians' representative's selection was not invalid on account of a wrong person being the teachers' representative in the absence of the petitioner and Annexure-10. 3. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Selection of the guardians' representative in the meeting, at which he was not invited to be present, was illegal. In support of his argument, he has drawn attention to sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules aforesaid, which is as follows: "If there are more than two guardians as candidates for being selected as members of the Committee, the District Inspectress or Subdivisional Education Officer, as the case may be, shall in presence of such members referred to in items (1) to (5) of rule 3 as maybe present, select two guardians by lot and declare the two guardians so selected a member of the Committee" A reference to rule 3 would show that the members mentioned in items 1 to 5 are the hereditary and life members, the head master, a teachers' representative, an officer of the Education Department and 2 donors. The argument on the basis is that the meeting held in the absence of the petitioner must be held to be illegal. 4. A reference to Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 will show the if there are two guardians as candidates the Sub divisional Education Officer has merely to declare them to be selected as members of the Managing Committee. If, however, there are more than two as mentioned in Sub-rule (3), he is to select the two guardians by lot. The lot has to be drawn in presence of the members mentioned in items 1 to 5 of Rule 3. If, however, there are more than two as mentioned in Sub-rule (3), he is to select the two guardians by lot. The lot has to be drawn in presence of the members mentioned in items 1 to 5 of Rule 3. But these members have no say in the matter nor have they to do anything which would mean an active participation in the selection. In the writ petition it has been stated "that had there been any open voting and had there been these petitioner as Teachers' representative these two guardians' representatives should not have been selected by manipulation as it was done. . ". This shows a complete misconception of the rules. There is no question of voting by the guardians for the purpose of selecting two out of them. It appears from the writ petition itself that 20 guardians were candidates for such selection and 70 were present at the meeting. If the selection had to be done as it had been done by the Subdivisional Education Officer by lot, nobody else has any thing to do. The mere fact that a 'wrong person appointed as a teachers' representative was present would not materially affect the selection of the guardians' representatives. The absence of the petitioner who has been held entitled to be appointed as teachers' representative would also make no difference to the result of the selection. The Board has taken this view and I do not find any justification for saying that the aforesaid view is illegal or unreasonable. 5. Reading sub-rule (3) of rule 7 it is difficult to hold that the presence of all the members mentioned in items 1 to 5 of rule 3 is mandatory. Attention may be drawn to the fact that the lot has to be drawn in the presence of such of the members "as may be present." The selection would not be illegal merely because of the absence of any of the members in the five categories aforesaid or because of the presence at such selection of a person wrongfully appointed as teachers' representatives. 6. In the result I find no merit in the contention put forward. This application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner will pay to respondents nos. 2 and 3 only, who have appeared at the hearing today, a cost of Rs. 100/-. Application dismissed.