Judgment This Rule is directed against the syllabus of History for Class VIII prescribed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education revising the earlier syllabus on the ground that the same was not prepared in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the said syllabus was contrary to/or repugnant to and inconsistent with the syllabus which was prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training. There was an interim order restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned syllabus annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition at first for a limited period and subsequently it was extended till the hearing of the application for extension of the interim order. 2. The facts of the case, in a short compass, are as follows :- In West Bengal there are two types of schools, namely, schools affilated to the Central Board of Education, New Delhi and schools recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The syllabi of these two groups of schools though different are in conformity with the syllabus framed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (hereinafter referred to as NCERT), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi, The syllabus of History for Class VIII as prepared by the NCERT are as follows:- That the existing syllabus of History for Class VIII as enumerated by the NCERT are as follows: Unit 1. India and the Modern World. Major Idea: Developments outside India and a great impact on India. Unit 2. The Rise, Growth and the Impact of the British Rule in India. (25 periods) (Upto 1857) Major Ideas: 1. The absence of political unity and the mutual rivalry among the Indian Rulers facilitated the growth of British power in India. 2. The British rule and lasting effect on the economic and social life of the Indian people. 3. From its very beginning, the British rule in India met with resistence from the Indian people. Unit 3. British Policies and Administration in India from 1858 to 1947. (10 periods) Major Ideas: 1. During this period, India came under the direct rule of the British Crown. 2. 3. From its very beginning, the British rule in India met with resistence from the Indian people. Unit 3. British Policies and Administration in India from 1858 to 1947. (10 periods) Major Ideas: 1. During this period, India came under the direct rule of the British Crown. 2. This period witnessed many changes in the political, economic, and social policies of the British Government in India to facilitate the consolidation of the British rule. Unit 4. Change in Economy and Society (1858 to 1947) (10 periods) Major Idea: The changes in economic and social life helped in unifying the country and played an important part in arousing the national consciousness of the Indian people. Unit. 5. Rule of Indian Nationalism and Struggle for Freedom. (25 periods) Major Ideas: 1. The discontent created by the British in India through their political and economic policies and the emergence of national consciousness among the people led to the emergence of the Indian national movement which expressed the aspiration of the Indian people as a nation. 2. Indian independence was obtained at a cost of great sacrifices made by the Indian people belonging to all communities and all parts of the country. Unit. 6. Freedom and after (Upto 1950) (10 periods) Major Ideas: 1. The partition of the country at the time of Independence created a number of problems. 2. The Indian Constitution aims at the establishment of a just social order. 3. The NCERT has appointed high level editorial boards in different school subjects to develop the syllabi and text books. The editorial boards consist of reputed educationists drawn from the school teachers were duly given representation. 4. On the basis of the said NCERT syllabus the syllabus for History of the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, in 1974 was framed for Class VIII. The places of different countries in the said syllabus of the Board prepared in 1974 were as follows:- Afganisthan, Bhutan, Tribet, Burma, Ceylon -10 pages. Important World events. -15 pages. India -140 pages. In the revised syllabus of the present Board (Total-135 pages) 1st and 2nd World Wars and after effects -8 pages. Europe -57 pages. America -6 pages. China -12 pages. Russia -5 pages. Japan -4 pages. Indo-China, Burma, Malayasia and Indonesia -3 pages. In the existing syllabus of the Board (1974), History of Freedom Movement with special reference to 11 National Leaders -50 pages. Europe -57 pages. America -6 pages. China -12 pages. Russia -5 pages. Japan -4 pages. Indo-China, Burma, Malayasia and Indonesia -3 pages. In the existing syllabus of the Board (1974), History of Freedom Movement with special reference to 11 National Leaders -50 pages. Whereas only 10 pages are provided in the revised syllabus. 5. It has been pleaded in the petition that in the revised syllabus of the Board there is no specific mention whatsoever of any Indian Leader, Social, Religious, Literary, Scientific, Religious or Political whereas names of Marx, Engels, Mao, Sun Yat Sen, Chiang, llieaders of Intellectual Renaissance, 3 leaders of Renaissance in Art, 6 leaders of Renaissance in Science, 10 Navigators of Europe, 3 leaders of Reformation movement in Europe have been specifically mentioned in the syllabus. Different phases of Freedom Movement in India have covered only 10 pages out of 135 pages whereas Bolsheviks Revolution has occupied 5 pages, Chinese Revolution 5 pages and Revolution in South East-Asia in 3 pages. It has been stated that the students who will pass from the Board under the revised syllabus, particularly in History may have lost in track in Central Educational System and may develop separate outlook affecting national integration and national soliderity. It has also been pleaded in the petition that the regulation was not framed in accordance with the provisions of section 27(2)(b) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. There was no regulation framed by the Board as required and the said regulations were not approved by the State Government nor the same were published in the Official Gazette as mandatorily required under the provisions of the, Act. The West Bengal Headmasters' Association made representations to the Board against the preparation of the revised syllabus to which a rejoinder has been made by the respondent No.3, Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It has been submitted that the revised syllabus as prepared by the Board being not in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act the same cannot be enforced. It has been submitted that the revised syllabus as prepared by the Board being not in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act the same cannot be enforced. It has also been submitted that the said syllabus which does not provide for the study of Indian History specially with reference to the National Leaders while providing for study of the leaders of other countries is opposed to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India as well as Article 51A of the Constitution of India and as such this revised syllabus is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Nirmal Sinha, Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, respondent No. 3, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed on 13th of February, 1982. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 who are guardians and the petitioner No. 2, West Bengal Headmasters' Association, have no locus standi to maintain this petition and they have no cause of action to move this Court against the new syllabus in History for Class VIII prescribed by the Board. It has been stated in paragraph 6 that in order to bring about a national consensus to the field of education through an Academic Advisory Organisation, the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare set up a body called the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on the 1st of September, 1961 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The NCERT is wholly financed by the Government of India, one of its main objects being to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education, particularly school education. The NCERT drew up a carriculum for the ten year schools and developed syllabi for different classes. In 1976 the NCERT released the syllabi for Classes VI-VIII and Classes IX-X based on national consensus. The new syllabi, as the introduction indicates, was drawn up by high level editorial boards in different school subjects consisting of reputed educationists from different parts of the country and it was hoped that the new syllabi would serve as an effective instrument for initiating the desired educational changes. The new syllabi, as the introduction indicates, was drawn up by high level editorial boards in different school subjects consisting of reputed educationists from different parts of the country and it was hoped that the new syllabi would serve as an effective instrument for initiating the desired educational changes. The Board in order to keep pace with the changing pattern of Secondary Education particularly to acquaint students with the history of mankind, appointed an expert committee and a syllabus Advisory Committee to draw up a new syllabus in History for Class VIII keeping in view the board guidelines of the NCERT. The Board appointed an expert Committee of four reputed Educationists/Historians to draw up a new syllabus in History for Classes VI to X including Class VIII. The draft syllabus was scrutinised by a Syllabus Advisory Committee consisting of the said four Educationists and two representatives of each of the nine Secondary Teachers' Organisations including the representatives of the petitioner No. 2, West Bengal Headmasters' Association. One of the two representatives of the petitioner No. 2, Shri Bibhas Chandra Mitra, is a co-Author of the history text book for Class VIII, written according to the new syllabus. After the new syllabus was scrutinised by the Syllabus Advisory Committee, as aforesaid, the same was placed before the Syllabus Committee constituted under section 20 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. The said Syllabus Committee met on the 24th of April, 1981 and 23rd of July, 1981 and on 25th July, 1981 the Board resolved that the recommendations of the Syllabus Committee for Class VIII from 1982 be approved. By Circular dated 30th April, 1981, the new syllabus, as framed was notified for general information to all concerned. Subsequently, by a Circular dated 29th July, 1981, the new syllabus as adopted and approved by the Board, was notified to all institutions. It has been stated in paragraph 16 that as regards the names of Marx, Engels, Mao, Sun-Yat-Sen and Chiang and other luminaries it was thought necessary to indicate the said names in the syllabus in connection with the study of other countries to show how important historical personalities have shaped the destinies of the nations to which they belonged, just as our National Leaders have moulded our destiny. Significantly, the petitioners have refrained from mentioning such leaders as Rousseau, Voltaire Montesquiue and Nepoleon of the French Revolution as well as Abraham Lincoln of the American Civil War who shaped the destiny of their countries and triggered off liberal forces in Europe and elsewhere, which influenced Indian leaders in the 19th Century. It has been stated that the History of Indian Freedom Movement will be studied in detail in Classes IX and X. It has been denied that there is no reasonable nexus or summum bonum of life or the greatest good of the greatest number cannot be fulfilled, save and except the particular political motive or purpose as alleged or at all. It has been submitted in paragraph 24 of the said affidavit that the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case for interference by this Hon'ble Court and the balance of convenience is entirely against the issue of an order of injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the impugned syllabus. It has been further submitted that the new syllabus was drawn up and notified by the Board on 30th April and 29th July, 1981 to all concerned after prior intimation about the introduction of a new syllabus in History for Class VIII and the text books of History prepared by different Authors in accordance with the new syllabus have been submitted and the same have been distributed for sale and most of the students of Class VIII have already purchased such text books. It has been further submitted that the writ at the instance of the petitioner No. 2 which had participated in the formation of the new syllabus is highly mala fide and motivated and is an abuse of the process of law. 7. An affidavit-in-reply has been sworn on 22nd February, 1982 by Shri Santi Ranjan Piplai, the petitioner No. 3. It has been stated that the introduction of the syllabus of History for Class VIII and books written on the basis of it, is an illegality and arbitrary action on the part of the Board through its politically motivated officers. It has also been stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 being guardians are materially affected by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents who are biased and politically motivated. It has also been stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 being guardians are materially affected by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents who are biased and politically motivated. It has been further stated that the educational system is a matter of public interest of great importance, the respondents cannot formulate their policy of education according to their own sweet will, which is detrimental to the national interest and based on particular political ideas and outlook. It has been stated that the representative of the petitioner No. 2, Sri Prodyot Kumar Sinha, a member of the Board who is General Secretary of the Association made a note of dissent, as it will appear from minutes of the 7th meeting of the Board dated 25th July, 1981 to the effect, that he did not approve the syllabus of History as according to him, in drawing up the syllabus, the whole approach of the subject has undergone a change. It has been further stated that Sri Sinha insisted that the syllabus in History of Class VIII should not be introduced from the academic session 1982. It has also been stated that it was found by the Kothari Commission that after completion of the education upto Class VIII, 20% of the students would not go in for higher studies and seek occupation elsewhere, another 20% would go for vocational education and 60% would seek admission to Class IX. According to the introduction to the NCERT syllabus for Classes IX and X a thorough knowledge of Indian History upto Class VIII is necessary, before presentation of the wider world to the students. It has been stated that the NCERT held that the background of Indian History is necessary for easy comprehension and appreciation of the main trends and events in the History of the World. It has been stated that the NCERT syllabus is directory to the Board in framing up the syllabus and it is mandatory in the sense that the syllabus of the Board is to be framed in such a manner which may not affect the relations of the neighbouring component units of the Federation, friendly relation with the foreign States, national soliderity, national integrity and the duties towards the States may not be jeopardised. It has further been stated that more than 40% of the students will not get any idea about India and her national leaders and freedom fighters. They will be deprived of the benefits of acquiring information about India according to syllabus not framed on the basis of national consensus. They would develop mental make up quite distinct and different from the students acquiring information as prescribed in the NCERT syllabus. It has also been stated that the Executive Committee did not frame any bye-laws as required under the West Bengal Board Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1979 and as such the syllabus prepared by the Board is invalid and unenforceable in law. 8. Mr. Panja, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted in the first place that the revised syllabus that has been framed by the Board is not in accordance with the provisions of section 27(2)(c) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 inasmuch as the Board has not framed any regulation for framing of the syllabus and the courses of study to be followed as well as the books to be studied by the recognised institutions. It has been further submitted that the regulations if framed at all has not been approved by the State Government and as such the said regulations are not valid. It has been further submitted that there has been no publication of the regulations after approval of the State Government in the Official Gazette as required under subsection (5) of section 27 of the said Act. The regulations, if any, framed by the Board are therefore invalid and ineffective in law. It has been further submitted that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 has been amended by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1979 (West Bengal Act XXXII of 1979). It has been submitted by Mr. Panja that under the provisions of the amended Act the Executive Committee has to provide by bye-laws after considering the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of study to be followed and books to be studied in recognised institutions. It has been submitted by Mr. It has been submitted by Mr. Panja that under the provisions of the amended Act the Executive Committee has to provide by bye-laws after considering the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of study to be followed and books to be studied in recognised institutions. It has been submitted by Mr. Panja, that the syllabus having not been made in accordance with the provisions of section 19A of the amended Act by the Executive Committee and the same being not published in the Official Gazette the revised syllabus is not a valid syllabus and as such the same cannot be given effect to. It has been further submitted by Mr. Panja in this connection that the regulation that has been framed by the Board in 1970, i.e., West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Preparation of Syllabus, Courses of Studies and Books) Regulations, 1970 cannot validate the impugned revised syllabus made by the Board inasmuch as the Board is no longer competent to prepare the syllabus under section 27(2) read with under section 27(3) of the said Act as the said power has now been vested in the Executive Committee by section 19A introduced by the amended Act. 9. Mr. Panja has next contended that the impugned syllabus of History for Class VIII as prepared and revised by the Board is ultra vires the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as it purports to affect this fundamental right by prescribing the syllabus of History in such a manner that the freedom of thought and expression will be seriously affected by not providing for acquainting the students of Class VIII with the freedom movement as well as with the national leaders who took great initiative in the freedom struggle and also the History of India. It has also been submitted that the new revised syllabus aimed at channelising and moulding the ideas and thoughts of the students of Class VIII to a particular direction by providing for study of the political movements in countries like China, Soviet Russia etc. and also the political leaders connected with such movements, thus giving a certain turn or mould to the tender and formative mind of the students of Class VIII. and also the political leaders connected with such movements, thus giving a certain turn or mould to the tender and formative mind of the students of Class VIII. It has been submitted that the impugned revised syllabus therefore clearly infringes or impinges upon the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression which undoubtedly includes the freedom of thought also as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It has been urged by Mr. Panja that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) includes not only the right mentioned therein but it includes other rights not specifically named but form an integral part of the said named right. Mr. Panja has cited certain decisions at the Bar in support of this submission. It has also been submitted in this connection by Mr. Panja that the impugned syllabus of History for Class VIII has also been made in contravention of the fundamental duties specified in Part IV A of the Constitution more particularly under Article 51 A(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as the purported syllabus purports to omit the study of History of India with special reference to the freedom movement and also the study of the national leaders and the national ideas as enjoined by the said Article. It has also been submitted that the action of the respondents in preparing the revised syllabus is mala fide and illegal and a colourable exercise of the powers and as such is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, has submitted that the application is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned revised syllabus. The petitioners, it has been submitted, are not the aggrieved persons inasmuch as neither any of the legal rights of the petitioners nor any of their fundamental rights have been threatened and/or affected by the publication of and enforcement of the revised syllabus by the Board. He has submitted in this connection that the syllabus that has been prepared by the NCERT which is a society registered under the Society Registration Act has got no statutory force and the same is not binding on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. He has submitted in this connection that the syllabus that has been prepared by the NCERT which is a society registered under the Society Registration Act has got no statutory force and the same is not binding on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It is a model form of syllabus or courses of studies prescribed for the students of Class VIII in Secondary Schools. Such a syllabus is not a mandate on the Board and the Board is not bound to follow the same. The Board may accept it in toto or may prepare its own syllabus in History for the students of Class VIII for schools recognised by the Board considering the syllabus as prepared by the NCERT. It has been further submitted that departure from the syllabus prepared by the NCERT does not necessarily invalidate or render illegal or ineffective the impugned syllabus prepared by the Board. It has been submitted that the NCERT specified in the syllabus of Classes IX and X the study of History of mankind while the Board specified in the syllabus of Class VIII the study of History of mankind as in the opinion of the Board after the study of History of mankind it will be convenient and also easier for the students of Classes IX and X to properly evaluate and appreciate and understand the History of India and its freedom struggle and of the part played by the national leaders in such struggle. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that there is no political motive as has been tried to be ascribed in the matter of preparation of History syllabus for Class VIII. It has been next submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that pursuant to the provisions of section 27(3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 the Board has made Regulations, called the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Preparation of Syllabus, Courses of Studies and Books) Regulations, 1970. The said Regulation was duly approved by the Governor and the same have also been published in the Official Gazette on 24th April, 1971 in due compliance with the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 27 of the said Act. The said Regulation was duly approved by the Governor and the same have also been published in the Official Gazette on 24th April, 1971 in due compliance with the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 27 of the said Act. The syllabus-in-question was adopted in the meeting of the Syllabus Committee held on 24th April, 1981 and the said recommendation of the Syllabus Committee was approved at a meeting of the Board held on 24th July, 1981. It has, therefore, been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, that the impugned syllabus is perfectly valid and legal. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that even under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1979 the Board under section 27(2)(c) has been given powers to make regulations in respect of matters provided in clause (g) of sub-section (3) or section 19A and this clause (g) refers to syllabus and courses of study to be followed etc. Therefore, the revised syllabus that has been prepared after considering the recommendations of the Syllabus Committee of the Board cannot be challenged as having been made in contravention of the provisions of this Act and so illegal. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that if it is held that the impugned revised syllabus has not been properly made as required under the amended Act XXXII of 1979, in that case, considering the hardship that will be caused to a large number of students reading in several thousands of Secondary Schools in West Bengal under the Board and also considering the great financial loss and prejudice that will be caused to the various publishers who have already published books and submitted the same for approval to the Board and most of the books have been purchased by students and are being read by them the impugned revised syllabus should be allowed to continue at least for the year 1982 considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience that will result from the continuance of the revised syllabus and in this connection Mr. Chatterjee cited one decision of the Supreme Court at the Bar. It has been lastly submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the revised syllabus is neither a threat to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution nor it purports to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression. Chatterjee cited one decision of the Supreme Court at the Bar. It has been lastly submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the revised syllabus is neither a threat to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution nor it purports to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression. It has been further submitted that Article 51(a) which embodies the fundamental duties are not enforceable as rights and as such the challenge on this ground is without any substance. It has been lastly submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the Board has not acted mala fide or arbitrarily or in colourable exercise of its powers in preparing the revised syllabus. 11. Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents adopted the submissions made by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the Board. 12. Before dealing with the contentions as advanced on behalf of the parties, it is proper to decide the preliminary objections as raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of this writ petition. It has been urged on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education that the instant writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioners inasmuch as none of the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned revised syllabus which had been made by the Board. It has been submitted that neither any statutory right nor any constitutional right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution has been affected and/or infringed by the impugned revised syllabus of History for Class VIII. There is no dispute about the legal position that the existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This has been first observed in the case of (1) State of Orissa v. Madangopal, AIR 1952 SC 12 at page 13, paragraph 5. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of 5 Judges and the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Kania, C.J. spoke for the Supreme Court. This view has been reiterated in the case of (2) M.S. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 276 , where it has been observed that it is elementary though it is to be restated that one cannot ask for a Writ of Mandamus without a legal right. This view has been reiterated in the case of (2) M.S. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 276 , where it has been observed that it is elementary though it is to be restated that one cannot ask for a Writ of Mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a Writ of Mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is writ of denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. In the case of (3) Jasbhai Motibhai v. Haji Basir Ahmed & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578 at page 581, paragraph 12 it has been held: "The expression 'aggieved person' denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. The expression ordinarily indicates that this is not a cast iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudically affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule." In the case of (4) State of M.P. v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 888 at page 893, paragraph 17 it has been held: "The real party, in many litigative battles under Article 226, is the community whose processual participation is alien to the adversary system inherited from an individualistic legal culture. The Judges are the guardians of that silent sector until our system of procedure is reconstructed." Considering all these decisions I have held in the case of (5) Re: Monoranjan Maity & Ors. The Judges are the guardians of that silent sector until our system of procedure is reconstructed." Considering all these decisions I have held in the case of (5) Re: Monoranjan Maity & Ors. v. District School Board, Midnapore & Ors., decided on 31.3.81 as follows:- "In order to maintain an application for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Certiorari or for any other appropriate order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not the sole test to be satisfied that the person making the application must show that any of his individual or personal rights either conferred by Part III of the Constitution or by any statute has been infringed illegally by the purported action or inaction on the part of the statutory authority. If a person is shown to have a genuine grievance by an action or inaction on the part of the authority to discharge his public duties enjoined upon him by the Act, in that case such person will be an aggrieved person having locus standi to maintain an application for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari against the purported action or inaction on the part of such public authority." Judged by this test the purported syllabus in History for the students of Class VIII to be followed in schools recognised by the Board certainly gave rise to a genuine grievance to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 who are guardians and to the petitioner No. 2 which is an Association of Headmasters in West Bengal and as such they are aggrieved persons. Therefore this writ petition at the instance of these petitioners is, in my opinion, maintainable in this jurisdiction. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observation made by Chandrachud, C.J. in the case of (6) Fertilizer Corporation, Kamagar Union, Sindri v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 844 that "we feel concerned to point out that the maintainability of a writ petition which is corelated to the existence and violation of a fundamental right is not always to be confused with the locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32. These two matters often mingle and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider them in water tight compartments. These two matters often mingle and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider them in water tight compartments. The question whether a person has the locus to file a proceeding depends mostly and often on whether he possesses as a legal right and that the right is violated. But, in an appropriate case, it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights anti social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceeding, be it under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. If a public property is dissipated, it would require a strong argument to convince the Court that representative segments of the public or at least a section of the public which is directly interested or affected would have no right to complain of the infraction of public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to the people. 13. It has been urged that the impugned syllabus of History for Class VIII as made by the Board is illegal and unenforceable as it purports to infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that in the impugned revised syllabus no proper provision has been made for teaching the pupils of Class VIII about the History of India specially with regard to the freedom movement and the national leaders who participated in such movements which ultimately led to the attainment of the freedom from the foreign rule. It has also been stated that the reading and writing of History is crucial in any civilisation. The revised syllabus is aimed at the study of the political and social History of China and Soviet Russia and their leaders who participated in such movements. Marx, Engels, Mao, Sun-Yet-Sen, Chiang and 11 leaders of intellectual Renaissance etc. It has been submitted that this revised syllabus purports to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as it does not make provision for acquainting and educating the pupils of Class VIII about the history of their own country, that is, of India and the social and also the political movements of their country including a study of the national leaders of this country. It has been submitted that before the pupils or students of Class VIII are imparted teaching about the history of the World and the social and political conditions and movements of other countries it is essential that they should be educated and/or acquainted with the social, religious and political history of their own country, that is, of India and also the part played by their national leaders, in ushering in the social and political changes in the country. It has also been submitted that about 40% of the students after completion of Class VIII leaves general education and as such it has been submitted that it is necessary that syllabus of History for Class VIII will provide for the study of Indian History and its national leaders and the freedom struggle. This argument has been tried to be repelled on behalf of the respondent, the Board, by contending that some provisions have been made in the syllabus for the study of the Indian History in the syllabi of Classes IX and X. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, on behalf of the respondents that in order to get a better understanding of the history of India the pupils must first know the history of mankind and also the history of social and political movements and the leaders who played great parts in such movements in other countries such as China, Russia as well as the French Revolution. It has therefore been submitted that the contention of the petitioners is not tenable. It has also been submitted that the Board is within its power to prescribe the syllabus and the courses of study to be followed by the schools recognised under the Board and as such the purported challenge by this writ petition against the impugned revised syllabus made by the Board is without any substance and there has been also no violation of the right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 14. The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)( a) of the Constitution relates to the right of freedom of speech and expression. Prima facie it appears that the preparation of the revised syllabus by the Board does not impinge upon this fundamental right. 14. The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)( a) of the Constitution relates to the right of freedom of speech and expression. Prima facie it appears that the preparation of the revised syllabus by the Board does not impinge upon this fundamental right. The right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) not only brings within its fold the right named therein but also the unnamed right which is an integral part of this fundamental right and pertakes of that same basic nature and character as that of the fundamental right. Reference may be made in this connection to the observations of Bhagwati, J. in the case of (7) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 597 , where it has been observed as follows :- "It would thus, be seen that even if a right is not specifically mentioned in Article 19(1)(a) it may still be a fundamental right covered by some clause in that Article, if it is an integral part of the named fundamental right or pertakes of the same basic nature and character as that fundamental right. It is not enough that a right claimed by the petitioner flows or emanates from a named fundamental right or that its existence is necessary in order to make the exercise of the named fundamental right meaningful and effective. Every activity which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right is not necessarily comprehended in that fundamental right nor can it be regarded as such merely because it may not be possible otherwise to effectively exercise the fundamental right. The contrary construction would lead to incongruous results and the entire scheme of Article 19(1) which confers different rights and sanctions different restrictions according to different standards depending upon the nature of the right will be upset. What is necessary to be seen is and that is, the test which must be applied. whether the right claimed by the petitioner is an integral part of the named fundamental right or per takes of the same basic nature as the named fundamental right so as that the exercise of such right is in reality and substance nothing but an instance of the exercise of the named fundamental right." 15. whether the right claimed by the petitioner is an integral part of the named fundamental right or per takes of the same basic nature as the named fundamental right so as that the exercise of such right is in reality and substance nothing but an instance of the exercise of the named fundamental right." 15. Judged by the above test the right of freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes within its reach the right of freedom of thought which, in my opinion, is an integral part of the aforesaid right and pertakes of the same basic nature and character. In a democratic State as our State is, it is necessary that the pupils who will be the future citizens will be imparted education in such a manner that they become well-conversant with the social, political and religious movements and developments in India and also its freedom struggle and also its national leaders. In other words, the syllabus should be so devised that the pupils of Class VIII become well acquainted with the History of India and its freedom movement and the national leaders who were responsible for bringing in social and political changes in the country which ultimately led to the achievement of freedom of India. In order to bring about a national consensus in the field of education and through academic organization, the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare set up the National Council of Educational Research and Training (called NCERT) on 1st of September, 1961. It is wholly financed by the Government of India. The NCERT drew up the curriculum of Secondary Schools and developed syllabi for different classes. This has been printed in booklets. It will appear from the syllabus in History for Class VIII that the provisions have been made for the study of History of India and including the freedom struggle and its national leaders. The study of World History has been provided in the syllabi for Classes IX and X. Therefore, the revised syllabus that has been prepared by the Board is a departure from the syllabus that has been prepared by the NCERT. The revised syllabus only gives 40 pages out of 130 pages for the study of Indian History. The study of World History has been provided in the syllabi for Classes IX and X. Therefore, the revised syllabus that has been prepared by the Board is a departure from the syllabus that has been prepared by the NCERT. The revised syllabus only gives 40 pages out of 130 pages for the study of Indian History. The revised syllabus thus devotes more pages for the study of the World History and also of the leaders who participated in the political movements in other countries such as China, Russia, America etc. No provision has been made for imparting knowledge on the students about the social and political movements, the freedom movement and also the national leaders and their activities to the pupils of Class VIII. It is, therefore, clear that out of the total students of Class VIII who will know very little about the History of their own country and its social, political and religious movements as well as of its national leaders, 40% of the students will fall out either they will take to other vocations or they will discontinue their studies. Their ideas and thoughts will be trained in a particular manner and to a particular direction which will impede their right of free thinking and this will naturally affect and/or impinge upon their right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). In other words, this will go to prejudice their minds and thoughts also. In these circumstances I am constrained to hold that the syllabus of History as prepared and revised by the Board is ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 16. The other contention that it also affects the fundamental duties envisaged in Article 51A is devoid of any merit on the ground that this fundamental duty does not confer any enforceable right on the citizens. 17. The second contention that the revised syllabus prepared by the West Bengal Board is not in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1979 (West Bengal Act XXXII of 1979), and so the revised syllabus is illegal, ineffective and not enforceable in law. To deal with this contention effectively it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. To deal with this contention effectively it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. Section 18: As soon as may be after the Board is established the Board, shall constitute the following committees, namely:- (a) the Recognition Committee; (b) the Syllabus Committee, etc. Section 20(3): It shall be the duty of the Syllabus Committee to: (a) advise the Board about the syllabus and courses of studies to be followed and the books to be studied in recognised Institutions as well as for examinations instituted by the Board, (b) advise the Board on any matter relating to the syllabus, courses of study or books to be studied, as may be referred to it by the Board. Section 27(2) : subject to any general or special orders of the State Government, the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder the Board shall have the general power to direct, supervise and control Secondary Education, and in particular the power,-(c) to provide by regulations after considering the recommendations if any, of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of study to be followed and the books to be studied in recognised Institutions and for examinations instituted by the Board; subsection (3) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the Board shall have the power to make regulations in respect of any matter for proper exercise of its powers under this Act; (4) no regulation shall be valid unless it is approved by the State Government...(5) All regulations approved by the State Government shall be published in the Official Gazette. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1979 was enforced on 2nd November, 1979. Section 6 of the said Act inserts clause (aa) after clause (a) of section 18 of the Act. Clause (aa) the Executive Committee. Section 19(A) was inserted by section 8 of the said Amendment Act. The relevant excerpts of the said section is quoted hereinbelow :- 19A(3) it shall be the duty of the Executive Committee to...... (g) to provide by bye-laws after considering the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of studies to be followed and books to be studied in recognised Institutions and for examinations instituted by the Board in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Board...... (g) to provide by bye-laws after considering the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of studies to be followed and books to be studied in recognised Institutions and for examinations instituted by the Board in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Board...... (5) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) the Executive Committee shall have the power to make bye-laws in respect of matters referred to in clauses (g), (i), (k) and (l) of sub-section (3). (6) No bye-law shall be valid unless it is approved by the State Government. The Executive Committee shall submit the bye-law to the Board and the Board shall examine the same and submit the bye-law to the State Government with its report. The State Government, after considering the report of the Board, may approve the bye-law and, if necessary, make such additions, alterations or modifications as it thinks fit. (7) All bye-laws approved by the State Government shall be published in the Official Gazette. 18. Section 15 of the amended Act substituted clauses (a) to (m) in sub-section (2) of that section. Clause (c) which is relevant for our present purpose is quoted hereinbelow: 27(2)(c)...to make regulations in respect of matters referred to in clauses (c), (d), (e) and (g) of subsection (3) of section 19A. 19. Thus, on a consideration of the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 prior to its amendment by Act XXXII of 1979 the Board was given the exclusive power under section 27(2)(c) of the said Act to provide by regulations after consideration of recommendations of the Syllabus Committee, the syllabus, the courses of study and the books to be studied in recognised institutions. It has also been provided in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of the said section that the regulations made by the Board shall not be followed unless they are approved by the State Government and all regulations approved by the State Government thereafter to be in published in Official Gazette. In accordance with this provisions the Board framed the regulations called the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Preparation of Syllabus, Courses of Studies and Books) Regulations, 1970. These regulations were enforced on and from 1st April, 1970. In accordance with this provisions the Board framed the regulations called the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Preparation of Syllabus, Courses of Studies and Books) Regulations, 1970. These regulations were enforced on and from 1st April, 1970. It has been stated that on the basis of these regulations the Board after considering the recommendations of the Syllabus Committee prepared and revised the impugned syllabus of History at its meeting held on 25th of July, 1981. It has been submitted that this revised syllabus as such cannot be assailed as illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been submitted that even if no regulation has been framed under the amended Act XXXII of 1979, still then on the basis of section 24 of the General Clauses Act and section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses Act regulations made by the Board in 1970 are valid and the revised syllabus that has been made after considering the recommendation of the Syllabus Committee by the Board is also valid. This power of the Board on consideration of the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee to prepare the syllabus the courses of study to be followed and the books to be studied in schools recognised by the Board have been vested in the Executive Committee by section 19A which has been inserted by section 8 of the said Amendment Act, XXXII of 1979. Therefore, the Board is no longer competent to revise and/or to prepare after consideration of the recommendations of the Syllabus Committee the syllabus, the courses of study and the books to be studied in recognised Institutions under the Board. No bye-laws admittedly have been framed by the Executive Committee as yet for revising or preparing after considering the recommendations, if any, of the Syllabus Committee the syllabus, the courses of study and the books to be studied in recognised Institutions under the Board as mandatorily required under section 19(A)(3)(g) of the Act. It is also imperative that such bye-laws framed by the Executive Committee are to be submitted before the Board and the Board after examining the same submit the said bye-laws with the report of the Board to the State Government. It is also imperative that such bye-laws framed by the Executive Committee are to be submitted before the Board and the Board after examining the same submit the said bye-laws with the report of the Board to the State Government. The bye-laws shall not be valid unless and until the same is approved by the State Government as provided in sub-section (6) of that section and the bye-laws after the approval of the State Government shall have to be published in the Official Gazette as provided in sub-section (7) of that section. All these mandatory requirements and/or the procedure in the preparation of the impugned revised syllabus in History for Class VIII have not been complied with and/or observed. There is, therefore, no escape from the irresistible conclusion that the impugned revised syllabus is unenforceable in law and it is invalid inasmuch as it was prepared and for revised by the Board which is not empowered to do the same. It has been tried to contend that following this syllabus a large number of publishers have written and published books of History for the students of Class VIII and these books have been submitted for approval before the Board. The students of about 9,000 of Secondary Schools in West Bengal have purchased books and are reading them. The Classes have also held for a considerable period of time. In these circumstances, it has been urged that the syllabus should not be cancelled and/or set aside considering the serious inconvenience that will result from the order setting aside and/or commanding the respondents not to give effect to the revised syllabus. This argument cannot be taken any notice of on the ground that the syllabus in History that has been prepared and revised by the Board is ex facie without jurisdiction and in contravention of the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Board is not empowered to prepare and revise the said syllabus. It is also clear that though many books were published by several authors following this syllabus of History for Class VIII yet none of these books have yet been approved by the Executive Committee and as such the submission that these unapproved books are being followed in the recognised Secondary Schools cannot be taken into consideration for not setting aside and/or not directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the syllabus of History in Class VIII. The decision cited at the Bar in the case of State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 888 at 897, paragraph 33, is of no application to the present case inasmuch as in that case the challenge was made at a very late stage, i.e., at the time when the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court hardly one month left for holding the examinations. The text books by the Government were read and taught to the pupils for almost through out the year. In these circumstances though it was held that the syllabus for rapid reading suffered invalidation being not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, yet the syllabus was allowed to be followed and the same was not struck down. In this case as I have said hereinbefore the text books written on the basis of the impugned syllabus are yet to be approved by the authorities concerned and only two months have passed out of the academic year, 1982. Therefore, in my opinion, the above decision does not apply to the present case. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the case of (8) Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1232 , the Supreme Court issued a writ quashing and setting aside the text books on languages prescribed by the Board as also the text books that formed the subject-matter of the notifications as they were not prescribed in the manner required within the meaning of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4 of the M.P. Prathamik, Middle School Tatha Madhamik Shiksha (Pathya Pustaken Sambandhi) Vyavastha Adhiniyam (13 of 1973) and the books were quashed and set aside. 20. In the premises aforesaid the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners having succeeded the Rule is made absolute. Let a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned syllabus mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition. Let a Writ of Certiorari be issued directing the respondents to quash, cancel or set aside the impugned syllabus mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition. In the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of this order is rejected.