Judgment : This writ petition was made by Miss. Sanaka Das challenging the resolution dated 20th December, 1991 perported to be passed by the Managing Committee of Sir Ramesh Mitra Girls School. In a meeting held on 20th December, 1991, it was, inter alia, resolved, that suitable disciplinary action against the Headmistress is to be taken immediately. It was also resolved by the Managing Committee that the Headmistress, Miss Sanaka Das, is suspended from her services with immediate effect. Miss Sanaka Das shall be paid subsistence allowances as admissible under the Rule. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the said resolution passed in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 20th December, 1991 had been served upon the petitioner on 21st December, 1991. The writ petition was thereafter moved by Sanaka Das on 25th December, 1991 and on the said petition being moved an interim order was passed by this Court on 25th December, 1991 in terms of prayers (g) and (h) of the writ petition. By the said interim order a stay of the decision to place the petitioner under suspension from her service was granted and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as Headmistress of the said school. 3. Some of the facts relating to this case are as follows. A notice was issued by the Secretary of the said school dated 11th December, 1991 stating that a meeting of the Managing Committee of the said school will be held on 20th December, 1991 at 6.30 P. M. in the school premises. The agenda No. 3 of the said notice was to consider the various reports of the sub-committee formed in the last meeting and agenda No.5 was to consider the letter dated 12th November. 1991 and of other dates of the Headmistress addressed to the Secretary and the office orders dated 5th December, 1991 and 4th December, 1991 of the Secretary to the Headmistress and to take necessary steps to remove the deadlock condition of the school owing to the non-compliance of various decisions taken in the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 5th October, 1991. 4. Prior to that a meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 5th October, 1991. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting is annexed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Parimal Kumar Chowdhury on 31st January, 1992. 4. Prior to that a meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 5th October, 1991. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting is annexed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Parimal Kumar Chowdhury on 31st January, 1992. While dealing with the Agenda No.3, the Managing Committee after considering various letters of the Secretary to the Headmistress was of the opinion that the Headmistress is deliberately avoiding the fixing up of the Audit Programme for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 on the false allegations that the Secretary has taken away all the books and accounts. It was also resolved that the Headmistress is directed to fix up the Audit Programme immediately after the puja vacation with intimation to the Secretary. Regarding the change of signatory of Account No. 2027 in United Bank of India as per resolution dated 28th July, 1990 by the letters dated 5th November 1990, 13th November, 1990, 19th November, 1990 and 26th September, 1991, the Secretary requested the Headmistress to do the needful. The Managing Committee found that the Headmistress was deliberately ignoring to comply with the resolution dated 28th July, 1990 of the managing committee. It was also resolved that the Headmistress is directed to do the needful so as to change the signatories of the Account No. 2027 on or before 11th October, 1991. It was further resolved that the Headmistress if directed to call the meeting of the Finance Sub-Committee on 16th November, 1991 to discuss the financial position of the school. It was also resolved that the Managing Committee had the opinion that the Headmistress was ignoring to act according to the directives of the Managing Committee in respect of filling up of the vacant posts in the school and the Headmistress was directed to do the needful to fill up the vacant posts as early as possible. The minutes of the said meeting clearly demonstrate that the Headmistress was not co-operating with the Managing Committee nor was carrying out the directives of the Managing Committee and/or of the Secretary. On 12th November, 1991, the Headmistress sent a letter to the Secretary of the school whereby she raised disputes with regard to the various decisions of the Managing Committee. She also stated that the item of the Agenda were drawn up without consulting her for the obvious reasons inasmuch as the majority of the items were directed against her. On 12th November, 1991, the Headmistress sent a letter to the Secretary of the school whereby she raised disputes with regard to the various decisions of the Managing Committee. She also stated that the item of the Agenda were drawn up without consulting her for the obvious reasons inasmuch as the majority of the items were directed against her. The Headmistress did not attend the said meeting held on 5th October, 1991 and the letter of the Headmistress dated 12th November, 1991 abundantly shows that she was not in a mood to carry out the directions of the Managing Committee and did not consider herself bound to do so. 5. The first ground of attack with regard to the resolution passed in the meeting dated 20th December, 1991 was that the Agenda of a meeting is required to be drawn up by the Secretary of the Committee in consultation with the head of the institution and the president of the Committee. According to the writ petitioner, the Secretary drew up the agenda of the meeting held on 20th December, 1991 without consulting the petitioner who was the head of the institution. This is to be noted that the writ petitioner after receipt of the notice of meeting dated 11th December, 1991, did not write either to the secretary or the members of the managing committee that she was not consulted by the secretary and was opposed to the agenda fixed by the secretary. The, right of consultation is not intended to give her the right to block any resolutions being placed by the Secretary. The secretary could fix the agenda even after she was consulted and even when she opposed, the particular agenda. She could achieve the purpose either by intimating the members of the Managing Committee and/or the Secretary, to the effect that she was opposed to any particular item or items or agenda. 6. Rule 21 of the rules for Management of Recognised Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 provides as follows : "21. Agenda :-. She could achieve the purpose either by intimating the members of the Managing Committee and/or the Secretary, to the effect that she was opposed to any particular item or items or agenda. 6. Rule 21 of the rules for Management of Recognised Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 provides as follows : "21. Agenda :-. The notice of each meeting shall set forth the business to be transacted at the meeting, the agenda being drawn up by the Secretary of the Committee in consultation with the Head of the institutions and the President of the Committee and, except with the consent of three-fourths of the members present, no business other than so stated shall be transacted, provided that no matter involving the appointment or deputation or dismissal or removal of a teacher or other employee shall be taken up unless the matter has been placed on the agenda of the meeting issued with the notice, and evidence of service of such notice is maintained and preserved for inspection by any member of the Committee or any person authorised by the Board or the Director or the State Education Department." 7. It was argued that since the Agenda was not drawn up in consultation with the writ petitioner, the notice calling the meeting itself was bad. In the instant case it is quite clear that the writ petitioner was not co-operating with nor was in a mood to carry out the decisions of the Managing Committee. She was particularly challenging the decisions of the managing Committee and was refusing to obey the orders and/or directions of the Secretary made to her in terms of the decisions of the Managing Committee even in earlier meetings. There is no allegation that the President of the Committee was not consulted. In any event, the subject matter of the agenda related to the writ petitioner herself and/or the conduct of the writ petitioner and in my opinion the advice, if any, of the writ petitioner would have been an idle formality inasmuch as she would have in any event advised against keeping of such agenda. 8. The next point that was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner was that while considering the Agenda Nos. 3 & 5 as quoted above, no resolution could be passed for suspension of the Headmistress. 8. The next point that was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner was that while considering the Agenda Nos. 3 & 5 as quoted above, no resolution could be passed for suspension of the Headmistress. Agenda No.5 clearly st1tes that the meeting was to consider the letter dated 12th November, 1991 and/or other dates of the Headmistress addressed to the Secretary and the office order dated 5th December, 1991 and 4th December, 1991 of the Secretary to the Headmistress and to take necessary steps to remove the deadlock condition of the school owing to the non-compliance of the various issues taken in the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 5th October, 1991. No body has so far challenged the minutes of the meeting held on 5th October, 1991. In the meeting held on 5th October, 1991 various directions were made to the Headmistress. 9. There were office orders dated 4th December, 1991 and 5th December, 1991 which the writ petitioner did not recognise to be binding on her. The fact that the orders and directions of the Managing Committee and/or of the Secretary were not being carried out or alternatively the same were not intended to be carried out by the petitioner could not be disputed, in view of the correspondence exchanged and annexed to the affidavits. The Managing Committee intended to take steps to remove the deadlock was the agenda. This agenda, in my opinion, included any step that could be taken by the Managing Committee to remove the deadlock. The Headmistress is after air a paid employee of the school and is bound to carry out the directions of the Secretary as per resolutions of the Managing Committee. This appears to be a case of total insubordination and confrontation with the management by the Headmistress. The Managing Committee decided that the Headmistress is suspended from her service with immediate effect. In my opinion, that was within the scope of the agendas that was issued. The same also included the empowering of Smt. Sukla Basu as Teacher-in-Charge with immediate effect. 10. The Managing Committee decided that the Headmistress is suspended from her service with immediate effect. In my opinion, that was within the scope of the agendas that was issued. The same also included the empowering of Smt. Sukla Basu as Teacher-in-Charge with immediate effect. 10. Even if I would have been of the opinion that the order of suspension of the Headmistress was not included within the agenda even then under Rule 21 the Managing Committee in its meeting with the consent of three-forths of the members present could transact any other business as the said meeting provided that no matter involving the appointing or deputation or dismissal or removal of the teacher or other employee could be taken. An order of suspension of a teacher or of the Headmistress is not, in my opinion, a matter involving the appointment or the deputation or dismissal or removal of a teacher. An order of suspension does not, of necessity involve dismissal or removal of a teacher. Even after the order of suspension, a teacher may not ultimately be dismissed or removed. It was sought to be argued that a specific resolution should be passed for taking up any other business by the 3/4th majority of the members' present. In the instant case, there was unanimous decision of all the members present and voting, therefore, in my opinion a separate resolution for taking of the business of suspension of the petitioner was not necessary nor required as per the said rule and was an idle formality. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in (1) 1991(1) CLJ 222 Dol Gobinda Kayal v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. In the said case, the Secretary convened an emergency meeting. During the entire period of service of the writ petitioner in the said case, there was no whisper against the petitioner relating to any misconduct or misdemeanour. Furthermore, that was an act of an ad hoc committee. The question of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding or an order of suspension could not become so urgent so as to invoke the emergency power reserved for real emergency. In my opinion, the said case has no application to the facts of this case. Furthermore, that was an act of an ad hoc committee. The question of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding or an order of suspension could not become so urgent so as to invoke the emergency power reserved for real emergency. In my opinion, the said case has no application to the facts of this case. The next case relied on behalf of the writ petitioner was a decision of this Court reported in (2) Calcutta Law Times 1992(1) HC 66, Mahadeb Khan & Another v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. In the said case, the question of propriety of cancelling of a resolution of a Managing Committee of a recognised and aided school was in question. In the said case, the minutes of an earlier meeting was not confirmed in the subsequent meeting and without confirming the earlier minutes the Managing Committee purported to cancel a resolution without there being any such item of the business of the meeting. In the instant case, there is no such cancelling of any earlier resolution of the Managing Committee. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to make the instant application. I think, that the writ petitioner does have the locus standi to challenge the decision of the Managing Committee in case there is any infringement of statutory rule which is binding upon the Managing Committee. The conduct of the writ petitioner has been such that she does not accept the authority and/or the directions of the Managing Committee or of the Secretary. If that is so, the Managing Committee was well within its rights to adopt the resolutions which are the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition. I do not find that the writ petitioner has made out any grounds for challenging the validity of the said resolutions. 11. All interim orders obtained by the writ petitioner as against the respondents are vacated. However, it appears that a Special Officer was appointed by this Court during interim proceeding in this matter. The said Special Officer will make over the charge to the Secretary of the School and/or the nominee of the Secretary and/or the Managing Committee of the School and after making over such charge the Special Officer will stand discharge. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.