JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J.: Purba Kalikata Vidyatan Higher Secondary School for Boys is an aided institution recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The appellants claim to be the members of the Board of Trust of the Beliaghata Chhatra Sansad and also the members of the Managing Committee of the said school. The respondents dispute the right of the appellants to function as the Managing Committee of the said school. The said question is the subject-matter of another Civil Rule and we are not required to decide whether or not the appellants are entitled to still function as the Managing Committee of the said school. Shib Charan Bhattacharya, the respondent No.3, had been the Head Master of the said Purba Kalikata Vidyatan Higher Secondary School for Boys. On 30th November, 1974, he had attained the ago of superannuation but he was granted three successive extensions of service by the Managing Committee of the school. The District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education Calcutta by his Memo No. 835/G dated 15th October, 1977 had conveyed the approval to the extension of the service of Shib Charan Bhattacharya from 1st December, 1976 to 30th November, 1977. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) Calcutta in the said memo had stated that the case for further extension of his service should be submitted al least six months before he completed the said term of extension. He Should in no case be allowed to continue in his service after he completed the 65 years of age. 2. On June 21, 1977 Shib Charan Bhattacharya, the respondent No.3, made an application to the Secretary of the Purba Kalikata Vidyatan Higher Secondary School for Boys praying that steps might be taken to extend his service for the fourth term for a further period of one year with effect from not December, 1977. He annexed a medical certificate to his said application. The Managing Committee, however, did not immediately take up the said application of the respondent No. 3 for consideration. On October 15, 1977 the respondent No 3 made an application to the Director of Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal for granting him extension of service for a period of one year from 1st of December, 1977. The District Inspector Schools, Secondary Education Calcutta had recommended that the services of the respondent No. 3 be extended for one year. 3. The District Inspector Schools, Secondary Education Calcutta had recommended that the services of the respondent No. 3 be extended for one year. 3. On 29th October, 1977, the appellants as the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school had resolved not to entertain the application for extension of service made by the respondent No. 3. The sale ground for refusal was that the respondent No.3 did not submit his application fur extension of service for the fourth term at least six months before the expiry of his previous term of extension. In the second paragraph of the said resolution dated 29th October, 1977 it was alleged that the respondent No.3 had refused to obey ad-interim order of this Court dated 11th October, 1977. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 was directed to proceed on leave on full pay till 31st October, 1977. The Additional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Secondary Education, West Bengal by his Memo dated November 11, 1977 forwarded to the Secretary and the Head Master of the said school the following order dated 15th November, 1977 passed by the Director of Secondary Education West Bengal: Considering the contention of the Secretary and Sri Shib Charan Bhattacharyya, Head Master, Purba Kalikata Vidyatan for Boys, Calcutta along with other documents, the services of Sri Bhattacharyya as Head Master of the aforesaid school can be extended for period from 1-12-77 to 30-11-78 in terms of Rule 28(3) of the Government Order No. 1598-Edn (S) dated 15.7.69 read with Government Order No. 41-Edn. (S) dated 8.1.74 and No. 941-Edn. (S) dated 7.6.76 (regarding Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Un-aided) 1969). 4. On November 28, 1971 the appellants obtained Civil Rule No. 5808 (w) of 1977 inter alia Challenging the said order of the Director of Secondary Education Government of West Bengal by which the service of the respondent No. 3 was extended up to November 30, 1978. His Lordship The Honble Mr. Justice Amiya Kumar Mookerji discharged the said Rule. The appellants, being aggrieved, by the said judgment has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Mr. B. P. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted before us that the Circular No. 21 dated December 12, 1952 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal was applicable in the matter of extension of service of the respondent No.3. Mr. B. P. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted before us that the Circular No. 21 dated December 12, 1952 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal was applicable in the matter of extension of service of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 admittedly did not apply for the fourth extension of his service atleast six months before the expiry of his previous extension, therefore his extension application was not at all entertainable. Secondly, Mr. Banerjee, has submitted that the Director of Secondary Education did not give any opportunity of hearing to the managing Committee of the School before granting extension of service to the respondent No.3 for a term of one year from 1st of December, 1977. The Director of Secondary Education in his impugned order dated November 15, 1977 made an error apparent on the face of the record when he stated that he had considered the contention of the Secretary. In fact, the Secretary or the Managing Committee of the school was not given any opportunity to make either written or oral submissions before the Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal. Lastly, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the Director of Secondary Education did not record his reasons for extending the services of the respondent No. 3 as the Head Master of the school from 1st December, 1977 to 31st of November, 1978. 5. Purba Kalikata Vidyatan Higher Secondary School for Boys is an aided institution. Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of the Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Un-aided) 1969 inter-alia contains provisions for extension of services of teachers and other employees of aided institutions beyond the date of superannuation. Under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 of the said Rules the Managing Committee of an aided institution has power to extend the services of teachers and other employees beyond the date of superannuation, approval for such extension being thereafter sought for from the Director or any officer authorised by him ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Managing Committee. In case, the officer authorised by the Director under sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 does not approve of the appointment or extension of service as the case might be under sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 he shall refer the case to the Director and in case of disapproval of any appointment or extension of service the Director or the officer authorised by him shall communicate to the Committee the reasons therefor. It may be noted that under the said sub-rule (2) in case the Director or the officer authorised by him turns down the recommendation of the Managing Committee for extension of service, reasons therefor must be communicated to the committee. But in, case the recommendations of the Managing Committee are accepted no reasons therein need be given. Further, clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and un-aided), 1969 does not prescribe any time limit for making an application to the managing Committee by a superannuated teacher or other employee for extension of service. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 provides that in case the Committee does not recommend extension of the service of a teacher or an employee under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 28, it shall record specific reasons therefor and the person concerned may make his representation to the Director through the District through Inspector/Inspectress of schools and the decision of the Director in the matter shall be final. 6. In view of the above provisions of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Un-aided) Rules, 1969 we are unable to accept the submission of the learned advocate for the; appellants that the appellants had acted in accordance with law by refusing to entertain the application of the respondent No.3 for extending his services from 1st December, 1977 on the ground that his application was a belated one. The above statutory rules do not prescribe any time limit and the Circular No. 21 dated 12th December, 1952 issued by the Board of Secondary Education cannot over-ride or modify the said statutory rules relating to extension of services of teachers and other employees of aided institutions recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The above statutory rules do not prescribe any time limit and the Circular No. 21 dated 12th December, 1952 issued by the Board of Secondary Education cannot over-ride or modify the said statutory rules relating to extension of services of teachers and other employees of aided institutions recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Under Rule 28 in the case of all aided institution, the Director of Secondary Education or the officer authorised by him would be the approving authority in the matter of appointment and extension of services of teachers and employees of the aided institution. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education under Rule 28(4) is now the approving authority in respect of appointment and extension of services of the teachers and other employees of only unaided institutions. When the Circular No. 21 dated 12th December, 1952 upon which Mr. B. P. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellants, relied was issued no statutory Rules existed. The said Circular required the approval of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for appointing and for extension of service of the staff of the recognised schools. At present the said circular in terms applies to the aided institutions only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the statutory law. The procedure prescribed by the said Circular may be substantially followed in the matter of extension of Service of teachers and other employees of aided institutions. But the requirement of the said Circular that an application for extension of service must be made at least six months before the date of superannuation or before the expiry of the period of extension already granted cannot be considered to be mandatory. The object of providing a time limit was presumably to facilitate a timely consideration and disposal of matters relating to extension of services of a teacher or an employee of the aided institution. The clause (iii) of Rule 28(1) does not prescribe any time limit and the use of the expression "ordinarily within a week" clearly denotes that in a large majority of cases or generally but not invariably the Managing Committee should seek the approval of the extension of services of teachers and other employees within seven days from the date of decision of the Committee. In the above view of the matter we reject the first submission of the learned advocate for the appellants that the time limit of six months as laid down in the Circular No. 21 dated 12th December, 1952 applied in case of the extension of services of the respondent No. 3 who was a teacher of an aided institution. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the District Inspector of Schools while conveying approval to the extension of service of the respondent No.3 upto 30th November 1977 had stipulated that the case for his further extension should be atleast six months before he would complete the said term of extension. The said memo did not make any reference to the last date for making an application by the teacher concerned to the Managing Committee of the school and also the District Inspector of Schools could not over-ride or vary the provisions relating to extension of service as contained in Rule 28 mentioned above. 7. The Director under sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the Rules for the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Un-aided) 1969 has the appellate or revisional power. The said power of the Director under sub-rule (3) my not be strictly considered a quasi-judicial one. But in our view, in disposing of a representation made against refusal of the Managing Committee to extend the service of a teacher or an employee the Director is required to observe rule of fairplay. The Director is also required to consider the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the extension of services of the teacher or employee concerned. Therefore, although the Director under sub-rule (3) is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry he should give adequate opportunities to the Managing Committee which did not recommend extension of service of the teacher concerned and to the aggrieved teacher who has made the representation in question. The representation need not consist of a personal hearing but both sets of parties ought to have at least opportunities to submit in writing their respective cases before the Director disposes of the representation made under sub-rule (3) of Rule 28. The representation need not consist of a personal hearing but both sets of parties ought to have at least opportunities to submit in writing their respective cases before the Director disposes of the representation made under sub-rule (3) of Rule 28. Further, although sub-rule (3) does 'lot expressly require the Director to record his reasons in his decision disposing of such a representation, having regard to the nature of his statutory powers and the consequences thereof, the Director is required to briefly record his reasons in order to indicate that he had applied his mind to relevant facts and circumstances and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 enjoins that the Managing Committee must record specific reasons for not recommending the extension of the services of a superannuated teacher or an employee. The Director of Secondary Education under the said sub-rule is authorised to entertain and dispose of the representation of a teacher or an employee who has not been granted extension of his service by the Managing Committee, Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Director to record briefly his reasons for allowing such a representation and for over-riding the decision of the Managing Committee. 8. We may now proceed to consider the facts of the present case. The original records from the office of the Director, Secondary Education, West Bengal were placed before us. Copies of the note-sheets of the said records contained in File No. 4G/198/CA/70 have also been filed. Both parties have agreed that the said extracts records may be kept with the; records of this court in order to enable this Court to pronounce its judgment. It is no longer disputed that the Director of Secondary Education did not issue any notice upon the appellants to show-cause why the representation of the respondent No.3 should not be allowed and the Director did not also formaly give any hearing to the parties. After the representation of the respondent No.3 was received, the District Inspector of school (S.E.) Calcutta had addressed two memos respectively dated 1st November and 14th November, 1977. The said District Inspector had recommended that respondent No.3 may be given the extension for the fourth term. The District Inspector also pointed out that the Managing Committee did not recommend his case. The said District Inspector had recommended that respondent No.3 may be given the extension for the fourth term. The District Inspector also pointed out that the Managing Committee did not recommend his case. The District Inspector in his second memo dated 14th November, 1977 had referred to the letter of the Secretary of the school addressed to the respondent No.3 asking him to hand over charge to the Secretary and asking him to proceed on leave. The grounds for refusal by the Managing Committee were also mentioned by the District Inspector in his memo. Mr. Amitabha Chowdhury, learned advocate for the respondent No.3, has drawn our attention to the fact that the Secretary of Purba Kolikata Vidyatan for Boys had forwarded both to the Director, Secondary Education, West Bengal and the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Calcutta copies of the letter dated 1st November, 1977 addressed to the respondent No.3. The Secretary of the School in the said letter had conveyed the decision of the Managing Committee of the school not to grant the fourth extention of service to the respondent No. 3 on the ground that his application was not submitted atleast six months before the expiry of his third term of extension. The Secretary while forwarding the said copies to the Director of Secondary Education had explained that no action on the application of the respondent No.3 for fourth extension could be taken earlier because the approval from the District Inspector of Schools for his third term was received only on 17th October, 1967. An employee named C. L. Haldar of the office of the Director of Secondary Education stating the aforesaid facts had put up a note dated 15th November, 1977. A. Dutta placed the said note with the recomendation to the Director Secondary Education that the respondent No. 3 be granied one years extension. It was inter-alia stated in the said note that the respondent No.3 was a retired government servant in W. B. E. S. "The reasons for refusal of extension shown by the present m/c (which was superseded by the Board but bas again come in power by an injunction order of the High Court.) do not appear to (sic be) tenable. The case has been recommended by the D. I. S. (S. E.), Calcutta Extension for one year can be granted". The case has been recommended by the D. I. S. (S. E.), Calcutta Extension for one year can be granted". Thereupon, on 15th November, 1977 Sri S. N. Ghosal, Director, Secondary Education recorded the following order in the file: - "Extension of the services of Sri S. C. Bhattacharyya as H. M. of Purba Kalikata Vidyalaya for one year w. e. f. 1.12.77 as proposed may be granted." It may be noted that the Director in the original order did not record any reason and did not even state that he had considered the views of the Managing Committee for refusing extention of service of respondent No. 3 for the fourth term. We have already mentioned that in his memo dated 17th November, 1977 the Director, however, had mentioned "Considering the contention of the Secretary and Sri Shib Charan Bhattacharyya, Head Master...along with other documents, the services of Sri Bhattacharyya is extended...for the period from 1.12.77 to 30.11.78." 9. It is not disputed that a copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee together with the explanatory notes of the Secretary of the school was forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education. The District Inspector of schools (S.E.) Calcutta had also submitted his reports which referred to the stand taken by the Managing Committee for refusal of the extension of service to the respondent No. 3. The records produced before us indicate that all these relevant materials were pieced before the Director of Secondary Education before he passed his said order granting the extention of services of the respondent No.3. The Managing Committee bad refused to extend the services of the respondent No.3 only on the ground that his application was a belated one and the Managing Committee did not consider the eligibility and fitness of the respondent No.3 for obtaining fourth extension. We have already indicated that the ground given by the Managing Committee for not entertaining the said extension application of the respondent No.3 was not tenable. Therefore, in the facts of this case there was no failure of justice because of absence of any formal notice upon the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school to submit their representations against the prayer of the respondent No.3 for granting him extension of service. Therefore, in the facts of this case there was no failure of justice because of absence of any formal notice upon the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school to submit their representations against the prayer of the respondent No.3 for granting him extension of service. The view of the Managing Committee embodied in its resolution dated 29th October, 1977 and in the forwarding letter of the Secretary of the school was placed before the Director of Secondary Education. Therefore, we are not prepared to strike down the impugned order of the Director of Secondary Education on the said ground. 10. Director of Secondary Education neither in his order recorded in the file nor in the memo conveying the extension order has recorded his reasons. But, the fourth extension of service grunted to the respondent No.3 is due to expire shortly, i. e., 30th November 1978. In case, we set aside the impugned order of extension of the services of the respondent No.3, we shall have to remit the question of extension of services of the respondent No.3 again to the Director of Secondary Education. We have already indicated that the Managing Committee relying on the Circular No. 21 dated 12th December, 1952 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education was not entitled to refuse to entertain the application of the respondent No.3 for extension of service. The said view was erroneous on the face of the record. If the Managing Committee held the respondent No.3 to be unfit then possibly the Director of Secondary Education ought to have given reasonable opportunities to the Managing Committee to substantiate their findings against the respondent No. 3 For all these reasons, it would be futile to allow this appeal and to command the Director of Secondary Education to again hear and dispose of the representation of the respondent No.3 in the matter of extension of his services for the fourth term. 11. We however, make it clear that in this appeal we have not considered whether or not the respondent No.3 should be granted a further extension of service for one year with effect from 1st December, 1978. All questions relating to the fifth extension of service of the respondent No.3 are kept open. 11. We however, make it clear that in this appeal we have not considered whether or not the respondent No.3 should be granted a further extension of service for one year with effect from 1st December, 1978. All questions relating to the fifth extension of service of the respondent No.3 are kept open. Both parties will be entitled to act and proceed according to law in respect of application, if any, of the respondent No.3 for such extension beyond 30th November 1978. Subject to these observations, we dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. Ray, J.: I agree.