ORDER This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged an Order passed by the Administrator, West Bengal Secondary Education, whereby Sri T. K. Thakur, Additional D.I. of Schools (B E.) Burdwan, P.O & Dist. Burdwan, has been appointed as Administrator of Rayan High School, P.O. Rayan, Dist. Burdwan, (hereinafter referred to as the School) In view of the nature of the contentions raised before me it is not necessary for me to go into the details of the facts of this case. On the 27th March, 1977, an election was held for electing the members of the Managing Committee and it is stated that the petitioner was elected as such member and as such Secretary. It is alleged that on the 15th May, 1977, the newly constituted Managing Committee held its first meeting after assuming the charge to run the said School and since then the said Managing Committee has been running the School effectively without any fault or spot. It is alleged that there are certain enquiries made, which are termed as fake, collusive and colorable Be that as it may, it appears that on the October, 1978, the petitioner was served with a letter dated the 25th September, 1978. signed by the Secretary. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) whereby it has been stated that the Administrator has passed an order on the 21st of September, 1978, to the following effect : - "I have considered the reports received from the Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal on the matter relating to election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee held on 27.3.77 of Rayan High School, petitioner was elected as such member and as such Secretary It is alleged that on the 15th May, 1977, the newly constituted Managing Committee held its first meeting after assuming the charge to run the said School and since then the said Managing Committee has been running the khan) effectively without any fault or P.O. Rayan. Dist Burdwan It reveals from the report that the Headmaster of the School arranged to hold election on 27.3.77 by using election symbols against the names of the candidates seeking election despite the fact that a specific election programme was incorporated in the procedure for holding election published by the B lard vide Circular No.1/74 dated 15.4 74. Dist Burdwan It reveals from the report that the Headmaster of the School arranged to hold election on 27.3.77 by using election symbols against the names of the candidates seeking election despite the fact that a specific election programme was incorporated in the procedure for holding election published by the B lard vide Circular No.1/74 dated 15.4 74. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid I. Administrator, West Bengal Beard of Secondary Education, in exercise of power conferred upon me under S. 27(2) and S. 50 If the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 as amended, set aside the election held on 27.3.77 and appoint Sri T.K. Thakur. Addl. D.I. of Schools (B E.) Burdwan to act as Administrator of Rayan High School, Burdwan. for a period of six months or until further orders whichever is earlier on usual term. and conditions in place of the disapproved Managing Committee. The Administrator, as appointed will assume charge forthwith. On assumption of charge the Administrator will exercise powers and perform functions of the Managing Committee including power to operate Bank and postal Accounts standing in the name of the School and arrange for reconstitution of the Managing Committee as per prescribed rules within the term of appointment " This order is challenged in this proceeding. 2. Mr. B.N. Sen. learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule has raised inter alia the following contentions :-. Firstly, he has submitted that the Administrator has no jurisdiction to pass any such order. Mr. Sen has drawn my attention to S. 27(2) and S. 50 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act) upon which reliance is placed by the Board (through the Administrator) invoking such power. Mr Sen has submitted that S. 50 deals with completely different mailer and S. 27(2) does not center any such power. 3. The second contention of Me. Sen was that by this order the right of the petitioner act as a Member of the Managing Committee has been affected and accordingly the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard. The principle of natural justice should have been followed In this case. 4. Mr. 3. The second contention of Me. Sen was that by this order the right of the petitioner act as a Member of the Managing Committee has been affected and accordingly the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard. The principle of natural justice should have been followed In this case. 4. Mr. Arun Prokash Sarkar learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 has submitted that this power has been exercised not under S. 50 of this said Act but under S. 27(2) of the Act. He has submitted that though specific powers enumerated in S 27(2) do not include any such power. but that this would come within the expression general power Conferred on the Board to direct, supervision, control of secondary education. He has submitted that in this case what has been done is to pass an Order appointing Administrator and set aside the election which comes within the scope of the power to direct. supervision and control of secondary education. Mr. Sarkar has submitted that this general power conferred under S. 27(2) is separate and independent of the specific powers conferred under Rule 8 of the Rules issued under the said Act. He has frankly admitted that in this case power has not been exercised under Rule 8 because such power of supersession under Rule 8 can be exercised for any improper function of the Board, which naturally contemplates that the Managing Committee has been properly elected. Mr. Sarkar bas stated accordingly that this power has not been exercised under Rule 8 but under the general provisions of S. 27(2). 5. So far as the principle of natural justice is concerned, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that though such a duty to hear is expressly provided fur in the case of an action taken under Rule 8, this is not necessary in the case when such an action is taken under S 27(2). 6 Mr. Sarkar has also taken a point regarding the maintainability of the petition by the petitioner. He has submitted that the members of the Managing Committee arc not the party. Only the petitioner who is the Secretary has only come forward to challenge this order. 7. Mr. Sen in his reply submitted that this is a case of an order of super' session and appointment of Administrator. which power can only be invoked under Rule 8. He has submitted that the members of the Managing Committee arc not the party. Only the petitioner who is the Secretary has only come forward to challenge this order. 7. Mr. Sen in his reply submitted that this is a case of an order of super' session and appointment of Administrator. which power can only be invoked under Rule 8. Having regard to the language of S. 27(2) no independent power of surersession and appointment of Administrator can be invoked other than these contained in the provisions of Rule. Regarding the point of maintainability Mr. Sen has submitted that his client is a member of the Committee and irrespective of the question as to whether any other person has raised any objection or not, his client is entitled to maintain this petition. Regarding the principle of natural justice Mr. Sen has submitted that as he has already said that there is no question of there being two independent powers, one under Rule 8 and the other under S.27(2) the question of there being no duty to hear under S. 27(2) does not arise. In any event, he has submitted that both the cases being the same, there is no reason why such a duty should not be inherent in S.27(2) itself. 8. I shall take up first the question of jurisdiction to pass this order. In my opinion, this order is in effect an order of supersession of the Managing Committee. This order specifically sets aside the election of the Managing Committee. In my opinion, even if I assume that the power conferred under S. 27(2) to direct, supervise and control Secondary Education includes the powers to supersede the Managing Committee and appoint an Administrator, such power has been expressly made subject to amongst other the provisions of the said Act and any rule made therreunder. Therefore, it is clear that such power to supersede or appoint an Administrator under S.27(2) is subject to any rule which may be made thereunder. Pursuant to this a statutory rule has been framed. By Rule 8 the grounds on which the Committee may be superseded have been provided for. In my opinion, after such a rule has been framed, the power of supersede a managing committee is circumscribed by the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rule. Pursuant to this a statutory rule has been framed. By Rule 8 the grounds on which the Committee may be superseded have been provided for. In my opinion, after such a rule has been framed, the power of supersede a managing committee is circumscribed by the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rule. In my opinion, as long as Rule 8 is in force, no independent power of supersession of a Managing Committee can exist de hors Rule 8. The admitted position in this case is this order was not passed in exercise of power conferred by Rule 8. Apart from Rule 8, there is no other power to supersede any Managing Committee. Accordingly the first contention of Mr. Sen must succeed. In this context I may point out that the contention of Mr. Sircar if accepted and if it is held that there is any such power conferred by S.27(2) independent of Rule 8, that it might amount to conferment of a naked and arbitrary power without any guiding policy, However I need not go into this question any further. 9. So far as the question of principle of natural justice is concerned, as I have already held that there is no other independent power to supersede the Managing Committee other than Rule 8, the question as to whether the principle of natural justice is to be applied in the case of supersession in exercise of power under S. 27(2) does not strictly arise. But having regard to the submissions made before me. I shall proceed to examine this contention also. For this purpose I shall assume that there is a power to supersede or set aside the election of Managing Committee and appoint an Administrator under S. 27(2), independent of the provisions of Rule 8. Mr. Sarkar’s submission is that in such a case the principle of natural justice need not be followed. I am unable to accept such contention. Where the power is exercised to supersede a Managing Committee it affects the right of a person. A person has been elected as a member of the Managing Committee. He has acquired certain rights. There is no reason why such as right is to be interfered with and taken away perhaps permanently, without giving any opportunity to hear. That amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. I am unable to accept the contention of MR. A person has been elected as a member of the Managing Committee. He has acquired certain rights. There is no reason why such as right is to be interfered with and taken away perhaps permanently, without giving any opportunity to hear. That amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. I am unable to accept the contention of MR. Sarkar that there can be any distinction between supersession under Rule 8 and supersession under S. 27(2). In both cases it is a case of supersession. There is no reason why in both kinds of cases the principle of natural justice is not to be followed. Any interpretation to the contrary would also be, in my opinion, discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly I hold that whether Rule 8 or S. 27(2) applies, the impugned order is bad because this is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The admitted position is that the Board did not comply with the provisions of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned. I am not going into the question as to whether the other members of the Managing Committee should have made this application or not. The petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee. The petitioner is aggrieved as such member and Secretary of the Managing Committee by the impugned order. The petitioner is entitled to complain regarding the same and invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court if there is any prejudice to his right. It is immaterial whether other persons are exercising this right or not. 11. I should mention about certain other contention of Mr. Sen. Mr. Sen submitted inter alia that in any event, the Administrator has exercised his power, on non-application of mind. The only allegation made by him in support of his order is that the symbols were used in connection with the Election. It was submitted that there is no specific provision debarring any such use of any symbol and that this was mainly in addition and not in violation of any direction regarding programme and on that ground alone election cannot be set aside. 12. Mr Sarkar appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has disputed the correctness of this contention. It was submitted that there is no specific provision debarring any such use of any symbol and that this was mainly in addition and not in violation of any direction regarding programme and on that ground alone election cannot be set aside. 12. Mr Sarkar appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has disputed the correctness of this contention. Having regard to the conclusion I have reached as above. I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of this contention separately. 13. In that view of the matter. I pass the following order : This application is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. There will be a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to recall, quash and set aside the order of the Administrator dated 21st September, 1978 as contained in the letter of the Secretary to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated the 25th September, 1978, being Annexure 'A' to the petition. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. A prayer is made in the stay of this order. It appears that this impugned order is to remain in force for another three weeks only. It a stay is granted, it would amount the Rule being discharged and the order made herein will then become infructuous. In that view of the matter. I am not inclined to grant any stay. Rule mode absolute.