JUDGMENT In this application the petitioner challenges a decision of the appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education in an appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11, Biswatosh Sen. The petitioner was appointed on 5.3.73 as a temporary Headmaster of Chittaranjan Coloney Hindu Vidyapit on condition, that he would have to vacate if and when the ex-Headmaster, viz. respondent no. 11, is reinstated by competent authority. It is alleged that the respondent no. 11 had to submit a resignation letter on the 3rd. April, 1972 under duress. On 24th of May, 1972 an Ad-hoc Committee was appointed superseding the Managing Committee of the school. On the 20th June, 1972 the respondent no. 11 wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee wherein he stated that he had to sign a so-called resignation letter under duress on 3.4.72; a force-resignation was not a resignation at all and as such he was the Headmaster of the said Institution. In the said letter he also expressed his desire to join his duties as the Head of the Institution on the reopening of the school after the summer vacation. The Secretary, Ad-hoc Committee' replied to the said letter wherein he wrote that the said respondent no. 11 submitted his resignation to the outgoing Managing Committee and it was not known to the Ad-hoc Committee whether the said respondent had submitted his resignation under duress or not. The Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee asked him to return the cash money lying with him and other documents on or before 10th August 1974. In the meantime, the respondent no. 11 preferred an appeal. His grievance was that, he was illegally prevented from doing his normal and rightful duties in spite of his written request made to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee. His salary has been withheld since April 1972 and further the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee advertised for appointment of a Headmaster of the Institution. On the 8th March, 1973 the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee of the Institution requesting him not to appoint any substitute in place of the respondent no. 11 during the pendency of his appeal before the Board. The notice of the said appeal was sent to the Secretary of the school. 11 during the pendency of his appeal before the Board. The notice of the said appeal was sent to the Secretary of the school. But he did not file and observation of the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11. The decision of the Appeal Committee was conveyed to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee of the school by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by his letter dated 28.5.74, by which the respondent no.11's appeal was allowed and he was reinstated in his post with effect from 3rd April, 1972. The Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee was requested to comply with the said order of the Appeal Committee of the Board. 2. On 12th of June, 1974 the petitioner filed the present application. I directed that the copies of the application be served upon the respondents. The affidavit-in-opposition have been filed by the respondent no. 11 as well as the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. It is contended by Mr. Dutta, on behalf of the petitioner, that the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11 was barred by limitation. The said respondent no. 11 did not file any application for condoning the delay. Provisions of Regulation 7(1) of the Appeal Regulations have not been followed. It is further contended that as the memorandum of appeal was not sent to the Board by registered post with acknowledgement due, there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Regulation 4 (2) of the Appeal Regulations. 4. It is alleged that the respondent no. 11 was forced to sign the resignation letter on 3rd April. 1972. Thereafter on the 5th of April, 1972, he wrote a letter to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for redress. It appears that while further correspondence was being exchanged between the respondent no.11 the Ad-hoc Committee and the Board, an advertisement appeared in the Amrita Bazar Patrika on the 8th December, 1972 inviting" applications for the post of a. Headmaster of the school. Thereupon on 24th December, 1972 the respondent no. 11 wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Board drawing his attention to the said advertisement and also requesting the Board to send necessary forms to enable him to prefer an appeal. The Secretary to the Board by his letter dated 1.2.73 enclosed the Appeal Forms and permitted the respondent no. Thereupon on 24th December, 1972 the respondent no. 11 wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Board drawing his attention to the said advertisement and also requesting the Board to send necessary forms to enable him to prefer an appeal. The Secretary to the Board by his letter dated 1.2.73 enclosed the Appeal Forms and permitted the respondent no. 11 to prefer an appeal to the Appeal Committee of the Board for the redress of his grievances, if he so desired. On the 2nd February, 1973 the respondent no. 11 preferred the present appeal. 5. Under Regulation 4 (2) (a) of the Appeal Regulations, an appeal is required to be filed within one month from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the decision of the Managing Committee. In the instant-case, practically there was no decision of the Ad-hoc Committee. The respondent no. 11 was not allowed to join in view of his own resignation letter which was submitted according to him under duress. It is in the nature of a complaint case as provided in Circular No. 39/56 dated 7th August, 1956 issued by the Secretary to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It has been held by this Court in (1) Parul Sengupta v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors., reported in 1975 (1) CLJ 57 , that Regulation 4 (2) should not be construed to be a rule of limitation at all. There is no limitation for an appeal provided for by Section 22 (3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. So: in my view, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Dutta that the respondent no.11's appeal was barred by limitation. 6. Rule 28(8) of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 lays down the procedure for taking disciplinary action by the Managing Committee before permanent or temporary teachers and other employees are removed or dismissed. Such disciplinary proceeding contemplates an enquiry. The words 'further enquiry' referred to in Regulation 7(1)(b) of the Appeal Regulations pre-suppose a previous enquiry. So, in my view, the provisions of Regulation 7(l)(b) are attracted only to tho5e cases where there was a previous enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding. Such disciplinary proceeding contemplates an enquiry. The words 'further enquiry' referred to in Regulation 7(1)(b) of the Appeal Regulations pre-suppose a previous enquiry. So, in my view, the provisions of Regulation 7(l)(b) are attracted only to tho5e cases where there was a previous enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding. The decision of A.K. De, J. in (2) Radharaman Das v. The Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors., 79 CWN 31, is not applicable to the instant case. In that case, an Assistant Teacher was dismissed. The comments of the Managing Committee were received and explanations of the appellant on the comments were also obtained. In the present case, the Headmaster was not dismissed; there was no "disciplinary proceeding; obviously there was no enquiry. He was forced to resign under duress. The Ad-hoc Committee did not send any comments to the Appeal Committee. So, in the instant case, in my opinion, it is not necessary for the Appeal Committee to follow the first stage as provided in Regulation 7 (1) (b). I also find from the records of the Board that before permission to file an appeal was given to the respondent no. 11, there was an enquiry to find out the correctness of his statements. 7. Regulation 4(2) provides that the appellant shall submit to the Secretary to the Board, by registered post with acknowledgement due, a memorandum of appeal in triplicate in the Form appended to these Regulations, or in a Form substantially similar thereto. In the instant case the respondent no.11 preferred an appeal in the Form prescribed in the Regulations. But the memorandum of appeal had not been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. It is no where provided in the Appeal Regulations what would happen in the event of non-compliance of Regulation 4(2). Therefore, in my opinion, provisions of Regulation 4(2) are not mandatory but directory. The object of the said provisions is to shift the onus of proof of filing the appeal on the appellant in case the memorandum of appeal is either lost or misplaced. Such non-compliance does not invalidate the decision in an appeal. An appeal decided by the Appeal Committee cannot be challenged on the ground that the appeal was incompetent as the appellant did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 4(2) of the Appeal Regulations. 8. Such non-compliance does not invalidate the decision in an appeal. An appeal decided by the Appeal Committee cannot be challenged on the ground that the appeal was incompetent as the appellant did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 4(2) of the Appeal Regulations. 8. According to the terms 'and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner, he is required to vacate his post as soon as the respondent no. 11 is reinstated. It is contended by Mr. Dutta that the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the respondent no.11's appeal as the decision of that appeal depends upon his retention to the post of Headmaster. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the Appeal Committee had not acted illegally in deciding the respondent no.11's appeal. There was also no error apparent on the face of the record Accordingly this application fails and it is dismissed. There is no order for costs.