JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against order No. 77 dated 20th March, 1974 made in Title Suit No. 29 of 1972 by Sri P. K. Ganguly, learned Munsif, Purulia whereby he has decided an issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and has found that the same was not barred under Section 22(4) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. 2. One Sm. Nirmala Patel, who at all material times was employed as the Head-mistress• of Kasturba Hindi Balika Vidyalaya, instituted Title Suit No. 29 of 1972 in the Court of the Munsif at Purulia, for a declaration that the order of suspension dated 30th January, 1972 was illegal, ultra vires, malafide unjust and was passed beyond the powers of the proforma defendant No. 5 in this proceedings or the Managing Committee and as such the same was not binding on her. She also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the said order of suspension and for other reliefs. Apart from other allegations, she contended that the order of suspension was absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding on her, inter alia, on the ground that the meeting of the Managing Committee which was held on 29th January, 1972 was held in contravention of Rule 16 of the Rule for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and un-aided), 1969 framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. 3. It appears that the defendants raised a preliminary objection regarding the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit and on objections as raised the following two issues, amongst others, were framed: "(3) Is the suit barred under the Provisions of section 22(4) of W.B. Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 ? (4) Is the present suit maintainable in Civil Court and has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit.?" 4. They also prayed for determination of the said two issues as preliminary issues first and the learned Munsif, by the impugned order, on consideration of pleadings held that he had jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit and the Suit was not barred under section 22(4) of the Act. It is against that order the petitioner on 11th April, 1974 moved and obtained this Rule and at the time of the hearing of the same Mr. It is against that order the petitioner on 11th April, 1974 moved and obtained this Rule and at the time of the hearing of the same Mr. A. P. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied on subsections (3) and (4) of section 22 of the Act and also of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeals by Appeal Committee) Regulations, 1964 framed under section 27(3) read with sub-section (3) of Section 22 and contended that the determination which was made in the instant case, was improper and illegal. He submitted that subsection (3) of section 22 of the Act makes it clear that from any adverse decision the delinquent must prefer an appeal to the Appeal Committee framed under section 22 of the Act and since the decision made in sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Act shall be final under sub-section (4) of the same, no suit or proceeding shall lie in any Civil or Criminal Court in respect of any matter which has been or may be referred to, or has been decided by the Appeal Committee. He further relied on Regulations 3, 4 and 9 of the said Regulations and the case of The State of West Bengal vs. The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1298 and contended that if the provisions as mentioned hereinbefore are taken into consideration and are read together, then that would mean exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction and he further submitted that finality as contemplated under the provisions of the statute in question would also oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and in fact the Statute and the Rules and Regulations as framed thereunder provides for a complete code for the delinquent employees. 5. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent relied on Rule 16 of the said Rules and contended that in the instant case then: was admittedly a violation of the said Rules inasmuch as seven clear days notice was not given. He submitted that the meeting in the instant case was called on 23rd January, 1972. service of the notice was effected on his client on 25th January, 1972 and she was suspended with effect from 31st. January, 1972. He submitted that the meeting in the instant case was called on 23rd January, 1972. service of the notice was effected on his client on 25th January, 1972 and she was suspended with effect from 31st. January, 1972. He further submitted that since the opposite party No.1 has challenged the proceedings of the meeting and the validity of the notice itself or the very basis of the same, Civil Court will have jurisdiction to examine the case or to prove into the fact whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with or not. In support of his contention Mr. Dutt also relied on the case reported in A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 1298. Apart from this Mr. Dutt relied on Rule 28 (8) of the Rules and submitted that the said Rule contains the defened power and that any like order affecting the appellant" as mentioned in Regulation 9, will not include the orders of suspension. In support of his contentions Mr. Dutt further placed reliance on the prescribed form of Appeal to the Appeal Committee and more particularly, on item II of the same and submitted that the said form would also make it clear that the order of suspension is not contemplaced in Regulation 9. In any event, he submitted that since the order of suspension could not be considered as a final one so no appeal would lie from such an order. 6. Since the validity of the order in question has been challenged on the basis of non-compliance with the statutory rules, the submissions as made by Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent have substance and I find that the learned Munsif did not act illegally or with any irregularity in passing the impugned order and he was right in holding that in a case like this Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit. In that view of the matter the Rule is discharged. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down at an early Date.