BARIN GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: Originally the writ petition was filed by Madan Lal Patodia in his capacity as the President of the Managing Committee of Shri Vishuddhananda Saraswati Vidyalaya and as the Trustee of S. V. S. Educational Charitable Trust. The Headmaster of the said School was added as one of the respondents. The respondent No. 6 having pointed out that other members of the Managing Committee of the School are not petitioners and as such the petition cannot be treated to be on behalf of the Managing Committee of the said School, an application was made by 11 other members of the Managing Committee of the School for being added as petitioners and the said application was allowed. ( 2 ) THE subject matter of this writ petition is the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta whereby and under approval has accorded to the extension of services of the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Teacher of the School for the period 12th November, 1997 to 11th November, 1998. During the pendency of the writ petition another order dated 1st December, 1998 was passed extending the services of the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Teacher of the School for the period 12th November, 1998 to 11th November, 1999 by the self-same District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta and the said order has been assailed by a separate application although made in the self-same writ petition but not on the same or similar grounds on which the 1st order was challenged. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition an interim order was passed on 13th January, 1998 whereby and where under the respondent No. 6 was asked not to attain the School for the purpose of taking classes but the School Authorities agreed to pay his salary without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The respondent No. 6 contended that the School Authority did not pay the monthly salary for the month of December, 1997 and also the Casual Leave pay for 1997-1998 amounting to Rs. 1, 349. 70 and Rs. 2,378 respectively aggregating to Rs. 3,727. 70 and accordingly filed an application seeking a direction upon the School to pay the same. ( 4 ) I propose to deal with the writ petition as well as the other applications mentioned above by this judgment and order. 1, 349. 70 and Rs. 2,378 respectively aggregating to Rs. 3,727. 70 and accordingly filed an application seeking a direction upon the School to pay the same. ( 4 ) I propose to deal with the writ petition as well as the other applications mentioned above by this judgment and order. ( 5 ) THE School in question is governed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the Rules framed there under. The State pays the Dearness Allowance Payable to the employees of the School. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has granted special Constitution in favour of the School inasmuch as the School has been established by a trust known as S. V. S. Educational Charitable Trust. The term of the Managing Committee of the School was due to expire on 12th May 1997. In terms of a Circular dated 14h October 1996 the tenure of the Managing Committee was extended till 31st July 1997. On 30th April 1997 the Managing Committee of the School applied for extension of its term and simultaneously therewith fixed the programme for election of the next Managing Committee to be held on 28th September 1997. Such extension was, however, not granted and instead an Administrator was appointed. That was challenged in a writ petition. Since no interim order was granted, an appeal was preferred. The Appeal Court appointed Joint Special Officers with a direction upon them to operate the bank accounts standing in the name of the School and to hold election for re-constitution of the Managing Committee. In terms of the order of the Appeal Court election was held and members of the category of teaching and non-teaching staff as well as from the guardian were elected. Thereafter a request was made for nominating the departmental nominee. The Appeal Court clarified that pendency of the appeal shall not stand in the way of placement of departmental nominee if the election has already been completed. Ultimately the appeal was disposed of with a direction upon the Special Officers to submit a report to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, who in turn was directed to send a copy thereof to the Administrator of the School and all parties were directed to act in terms of the said order. Ultimately the appeal was disposed of with a direction upon the Special Officers to submit a report to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, who in turn was directed to send a copy thereof to the Administrator of the School and all parties were directed to act in terms of the said order. It was clarified by the Appeal Court that on constitution of a valid Managing Committee, the Administrator shall stand discharged and till then the Special Officers would continue to operate the bank account, where after they would stand discharged. The Appeal Court expected that departmental nominee would be placed as early as possible and recorded such expectation in its order. No departmental nominee was, however, nominated and accordingly on 4th December 1997 an application was filed before the Appeal Court when the Appeal Court directed the concerned Authority to pass an appropriate order with regard to the placement of the departmental nominee within a period of two weeks. In the meantime the first impugned order was passed. In so far as the respondent No. 6 is concerned he became 60 years old on 11th November 1996 and he having exercised option to remain in old scale of pay, became entitle to extension of five years of his service on year-to-year basis. The 1st extension to which the respondent No. 6 was entitled to was for the period 12th November 1996 to 11th November 1997 and such extension was granted. On 10th July 1997 the respondent No. 6 made an application for extension of his service addressed to the Secretary of the Managing Committee. In the application it was contended by the respondent No. 6 that he is physically fit and mentally alert and wants to discharge his duties for a further period of one year from 12th November 1997 to 11th November 1998. In the writ petition it has been stated that the Managing Committee could not take any decision on the said application of the respondent No. 6 as the re-constitution of the Managing Committee was not completed for want of placement of Government nominee. In the writ petition it has been stated that the Managing Committee could not take any decision on the said application of the respondent No. 6 as the re-constitution of the Managing Committee was not completed for want of placement of Government nominee. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the writ petition the respondent No. 6 contended that the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School refused to accept the application made by him for extension of his term from 12th November, 1997 to 11th November, 1998, and therefore, he made a representation to the Secretary of the School for grant of the same by registered post with A/d which, however, was returned with the endorsement "refused to accept". However, the respondent No. 6 claimed that he could manage to submit a copy of his said representation to one retired clerk of the School working in the Office of the School without lawful authority on 10th July, 1997. He then contended that on 31st July, 1997 the Secretary of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the School convened a meeting to consider extension of services of few teachers and since he was a member of the said Managing Committee, he was also asked to attend the said meeting and accordingly he did attend the said meeting, but his extension was not considered as the same was not placed although the application of another teacher Sri K. N. Upadhyaya made for similar request was placed, considered and allowed. Non-consideration of the application of the respondent No. 6, it was claimed by the respondent No. 6, compelled him to take shelter under Rule 28 (3) of the Management Rules, in terms whereof he obtained his 1st extension from 12th November, 1996 to 11th November, 1997. He then stated that on 26th August, 1997 he wrote a letter addressed to the Director of School Education (SE) and also to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) enclosing therewith xerox copies of the (i) application submitted to the Secretary of the School for grant of extension of service for the 2nd term, (ii) Medical Certificate, (iii) Madhyamik Examination Certificate (iv) approval of appointment (v) 1st term extension (vi) registered letter to the Secretary and (vii) receipt of application submitted to the Secretary. It was then stated by the respondent No. 6 in his affidavit-in-opposition that on his representation for grant of extension of his service for the 2nd term made to the Director of School Education through the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta recommended his application for grant of extension for the 2nd term to the Director of School Education on 4th December, 1997 and on the basis of such recommendation the Director of School Education accorded necessary decision/instruction to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta on 12th December, 1997 to accord necessary approval order for extension of services of the respondent No. 6 for the 2nd term and thereupon approval of extension of services of the respondent No. 6 for the 2nd term for the period 12th November, 1997 to 11th November, 1998 was accorded by an order dated 16th December, 1997. The respondent No. 6 also contended that although his extension has been challenged but the extensions granted to three others on 1st January 1998 in the similar circumstances have not been challenged and that itself is discriminatory. It was further contended by the responded No. 6 that it having been stated in the petition itself that the School is an Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it cannot act in such a discriminatory manner. In addition to that he contended that he could not attend school from 1st December, 1997 to 4th December, 1997 on account of his pre-occupation with oral intimation to the Senior Teacher Sri Ram Bilash Tiwari as the School has no legal Headmaster but when on 5th December, 1997 he attended the school, he was not allowed to put his signature on the attendance register and accordingly he lodged a complaint with the Local Police Station which was registered as G. D. Entry No. 446 dated 5th December, 1997. In sum and substance, therefore, he contended that at the relevant time there was no Managing Committee of the School, though the Administrator was appointed, but by the reason of appointment of Special Officers, his authority was doubtful and the Special Officers were not authorised to look into these kinds of matters and accordingly in order to save his right acquired by sacrificing a higher scale of pay, he approached the appropriate authority under the law and such authority upon consideration of the materials on record protected his such right by extending his service for the 2nd term from 12th November, 1997 to 11th November, 1998. From the records I could not locate any affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit of the respondent No. 6. ( 7 ) THE respondent No. 6 admittedly by sacrificing and upward revision of his salary acquired a right, subject to, certain conditions, to obtain 5 yearly extensions, one after the other, after attaining the age of 60 years. After attaining the age of 60 years the respondent No. 6 duly exercised his right to obtain the 1st yearly extension. That was from 12th November, 1996 to 11th November, 1997. In the meantime on 31st July, 1997 the tenure of the Managing Committee came to an end. It is not known whether the Managing Committee during the validity of its tenure considered and decided to grant such extension and accordingly sent its recommendations to the authority concerned. If the Managing Committee of the School had approved such extension and that had been acted upon, in the absence of the Managing Committee, when the 2nd extension became due, if the appropriate authority has accorded approval to the 2nd extension, it would show that the appropriate authority acted on a reasonable basis, since it could proceed on the basis that if there had been a Managing Committee, such Managing Committee would have also recommended granting of such extension, all other things remaining same or similar. On the other hand, if the Managing Committee during its tenure did not recommend the case of the petitioner for the 1st extension but still then the petitioner obtained such extension, I do not think that the Managing Committee could challenge the grant of the 2nd extension, granted on the same or similar manner without challenging the 1st extension itself. On the other hand, if the Managing Committee during its tenure did not recommend the case of the petitioner for the 1st extension but still then the petitioner obtained such extension, I do not think that the Managing Committee could challenge the grant of the 2nd extension, granted on the same or similar manner without challenging the 1st extension itself. I, therefore, see no just reason to interfere with the decision to grant the 2nd extension from 12th November, 1997 to 11th November, 1998. The respondent No. 6 is accordingly entitled to the all benefits of such extension including salaries, leave, etc. ( 8 ) IN the application made in the writ petition by which the 3rd extension for the period 12th November, 1998 to 11th November, 1999 has been challenged. It has been contended by the petitioner that on 15th April, 1998 the respondent No. 6 made an application seeking the 3rd extension. In the application it was stated that the respondent No. 6 is physically fit and mentally alert to discharge his duties as an Assistant Teacher and such assertion was sought to be substantiated by a medical certificate. On 4th August, 1998 the respondent No. 6 gave a reminder wherein the Managing Committee was charged of deliberately delaying the matter and accordingly a clarification was sought whether in terms of the order of that Court dated 13th January, 1998 the respondent No. 6 would be paid his salaries for one year or for 4 years till he attains the age of 65 years. It was then stated that the case of the respondent No. 6 for extension of his service for the 3rd term was placed in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 24th September, 1998 and after detailed discussion it was resolved that the application for extension of service of the respondent No. 6 for the 3rd term is rejected. The contents of the said resolution are extracted below: - "shri K. N. Upadhyaya, headmaster, placed a letter dated 15. 4. 1998 along with enclosures forwarded through the Teacher-in-Charge and letter dated 4. 8. 98 for extension of service of Mr. M. S. Dubey, ex-teacher. He also informed that in the letter dated 4. 8. 98 there is a reference to a letter dated 17. 4. 1998 but no such letter had been received by the school authorities. In the letter dated 4. 8. 8. 98 for extension of service of Mr. M. S. Dubey, ex-teacher. He also informed that in the letter dated 4. 8. 98 there is a reference to a letter dated 17. 4. 1998 but no such letter had been received by the school authorities. In the letter dated 4. 8. 98 Mr. Dubey stated that 'i am physically fit and mentally alert' which is pre-condition for extension. It was also contended by Mr. Dubey through the said letter dated 4. 8. 98 that a case being W. P. No. 2699 of 1997 is pending for disposal by the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court directed the respondent No. 6 thereby meaning Mr. Dubey not to attend the School for the purpose of taking his classes. But the School Authorities would pay his salary without prejudice. With these remarks, the Headmaster placed the papers before Mr. D. N. Poddar, Secretary, for consideration in the meeting. Mr. D. N. Poddar, Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School informed about the resolution dated 10. 1. 1998 passed by the Managing Committee in connection with the second extension of Mr. Dubey. The Secretary requested the members present in the meeting to express their views. Various members expressed their views intimating that Mr. Dubey is a person not interested in education. He is not interested for the cause of education and his mental condition and attitude is such that his extension of service is considered not worthy. The presence of Mr. Dubey would vitiate the academic atmosphere of the School. Attention was also drawn to the letter written by Mr. Dubey showing disrespect to the Headmaster in addressing as the alleged Headmaster. It was also pointed out by one of the members that Mr. Dubey is now practicing in various Courts as he possessed L. L. B. degree and a Registered Advocate. Therefore, Mr. Dubey is not at all interested in education. He is more interested and busy in dealing with the cases on behalf of his clients. Another member expressed his views that since the earlier extension being extension No. 2 had been granted by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta is a sub-judice matter, there is no need to consider his case for 3rd extension. To avoid further litigation in the matter he also pointed out that the applicant is debarred by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 13. 1. To avoid further litigation in the matter he also pointed out that the applicant is debarred by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 13. 1. 1998 from attending the school for the purpose of taking classes and teaching students. Therefore, there is no question for considering his application for 3rd extension. The Secretary requested the President to consider the views of the members present and to adopt appropriate resolutions. After detailed deliberation and/or discussions, unanimously the following resolutions were resolved :- 'resolved that the application for extension of service "3rd term" of Mr. M. S. Dubey is hereby rejected, having regard to the fact that Mr. Dubey is not interested for the cause of education and his mental condition and attitude is such that his extension is considered not worthy. His presence in the school premises would vitiate the academic atmosphere of the school. Accordingly, it is decided not to grant further extension. ' 'it is further resolved that the decision of not extending the service of Mr. Dubey for 3rd term be intimated to the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta. ' 'it is further resolved that the dealing advocate may be requested to take steps for early disposal of the pending case. ' 'it is further resolved that the Secretary is hereby authorised to communicate the decision to the authorities concerned, for and on behalf of the Managing Committee. ' ( 9 ) IN the said application it was stated that the said resolution was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta under cover of a letter dated 26th September, 1998 and a copy thereof was sent to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. It was then stated that on 2nd December, 1998 the respondent No. 6 came to the School and asked for the Attendance Register, the same having been denied, it was alleged that the respondent No. 6 tried to snatch the Attendance Register and accordingly a complaint was lodged with the Local Police Station on 3rd December, 1998. It was then stated that on 2nd December, 1998 the respondent No. 6 came to the School and asked for the Attendance Register, the same having been denied, it was alleged that the respondent No. 6 tried to snatch the Attendance Register and accordingly a complaint was lodged with the Local Police Station on 3rd December, 1998. In the meantime, it was contended that on 27th November, 1998 the writ petition was taken up for hearing when the learned lawyer for the respondent No. 6 contended that he has obtained the extension for the 3rd term and since the subject matter of the writ petition is for the 2nd term, the respondent No. 6 must be permitted to resume his duties in terms of the extension for the 3rd term, when this Court directed the respondent No. 6 to file appropriate application if he seeks any direction of this Court asking the School in question to permit the respondent No. 6 to resume his services. Subsequent thereto, it was alleged that the respondent No. 6 filed an application seeking directions for payment of salary where no averment was made in regard to extension of services of the respondent No. 6 for the 3rd term. However, it was contended that on 12th December, 1998 the School received a Memo dated 1st December, 1998 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta wherefrom it appeared that approval has been given for extension of service of the respondent No. 6 for the third term with effect from 12 November, 1998 to 11th November, 1999 as recommended by the Managing Committee/administrator provided the respondent No. 6 remains physically fit and mentally alert during the period of extension. It was stated that the said extension was granted on the basis of an order passed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal dated 20th November, 1998. It was stated that the said extension is claimed to have been granted on the recommendation of the Managing Committee but in fact instead of making such recommendation the Managing Committee decided to reject such extension to the notice of both the Director of School Education, West Bengal as well as the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta. It was then stated that the said decision to extend the service was passed rejecting the decision of the Managing Committee but without giving a hearing to the Managing Committee. It was then stated that the said decision to extend the service was passed rejecting the decision of the Managing Committee but without giving a hearing to the Managing Committee. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in support of its aforementioned application. In that affidavit it was stated that the said School is run and managed by the linguistic minority and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has granted a special Constitution for the said School. It has been stated that in terms of such re-constitution there are three nominees from the said Trust in the Managing Committee of the School. It was then stated that in that view of the matter also the respondent No. 6 is not entitled for reemployment as a matter of right although he might be mentally alert and physically fit and that the State would be slow in interfering with the decision of the Managing Committee of the School having regard to the fact that the School is under the management of a minority community. It was then also added that in any event without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Managing Committee, the order dated 1st December, 1998 extending the 3rd term of the respondent No. 6 could not be passed. ( 11 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6 to the said application it was stated that the Special Officers appointed by the Appeal Court held the election. On the basis of such election re-constitution of the Managing Committee was made. Some of the parties referred certain disputes relating to the said re-constitution of the Managing Committee to the Executive Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Despite notice no-one appeared on behalf of the Managing Committee before the Executive Committee who then by an order dated 31st December, 1997 held that the reconstitution of the said Managing Committee is null and void. The Executive Committee also appointed an Administrator of the School. The said Administrator then took charge of the School, who in turn appointed Shri Ganga Sagar Singh as the Teacher-in-Charge of the School. It was, thus, stated that the petitioner and the added petitioners, therefore, do not represent the Managing Committee of the School. The Executive Committee also appointed an Administrator of the School. The said Administrator then took charge of the School, who in turn appointed Shri Ganga Sagar Singh as the Teacher-in-Charge of the School. It was, thus, stated that the petitioner and the added petitioners, therefore, do not represent the Managing Committee of the School. It was then stated that a few assistant teachers of the School applied for extension of their services for the first term of five years after reaching their age of superannuation. The Managing Committee of the School refused to recommend the said extension. The said Assistant Teachers then applied to the Director of School Education, West Bengal for extension of their service. The Director of School Education granted extension of the services of such Assistant Teachers. That order of the Director of School Education was not carried out by the Managing Committee of the School and the Managing Committee forcibly got retired the said Assistant Teachers. The said Assistant Teachers then filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as Matter No. 2276 of 1987. The said writ petition was allowed to the extent by issuing a direction to pay the salaries of the writ petitioners for the first year. The writ petitioners then preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed with a direction to pay all monetary benefits to such Assistant Teachers until they continued in service. A copy of the order of the Appeal Court has been annexed. From that it does not appear that it was urged before the Appeal Court that before granting extension the Director of School Education was obliged to give a hearing to the Managing Committee of the School. The matter was then taken up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confined the order of the Appeal Court, but then the Supreme Court directed that such Assistant Teachers shall not have any further extension beyond the two years already extended. I do not see any reason why the respondent No. 6 referred to the said judgment of the Appeal Court and of the Supreme Court. I do not see any reason why the respondent No. 6 referred to the said judgment of the Appeal Court and of the Supreme Court. It also does not appear from the order of the Supreme Court why those Assistant Teachers were debarred from getting extension beyond two years although the Appeal Court specifically clarified that it was not concerned with the rights and contentions of the parties in respect to the grant of subsequent extension, if any, to those Assistant Teachers and that the Appeal Court has not, expressed any opinion on that question. ( 12 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner contended that there was no valid or legal dispute with regard to the re-constitution of the Managing Committee as was constituted by the Special Officers in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It was stated that the alleged election dispute was not served upon the Managing Committee so constituted or upon any of its elected members. It was stated that the order of appointment of the Administrator dated 7th January, 1999 was served on 15th January, 1999. It was than stated that the said order appointing Administrator was challenged by the Managing Committee of the School by filing a writ petition. On 12th January, 1999 the said order was stayed temporarily. It was further stated that in the meantime by an order dated 19th December, 1997 the District Inspector of School (SE) placed a departmental nominee to act as a member in the said re-constituted Managing Committee. It was then added that after the placement of the departmental nominee the re-constitution of the Managing Committee of the School was completed and subsequent thereto by a letter dated 21st September, 1998 the District Inspector of School (SE), Calcutta informed the Director of School Education, West Bengal that the re-constitution of the Managing Committee of Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. By and under section 45 of the said Act power has been granted to the State Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Although such power is general but by way of example it has been provided in section 45 of the said Act that the State Government can make rules in relation to the composition, power and function of the Managing Committee of the institutions. Although such power is general but by way of example it has been provided in section 45 of the said Act that the State Government can make rules in relation to the composition, power and function of the Managing Committee of the institutions. In exercise of such power the State Government has made Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969. The said Rules are applicable in relation to any recognised non-Government institution whether aidded or unaided. The recognition as is talked about as a recognition to be accorded to the concerned institution by the Board of Secondary Education. Therefore, if an institution is recognised by the Board of Secondary Education the said Rules would squarely apply to such institution. The institution in the instant case has been recognised by the Board of Secondary Education. For being so recognised the said Rules are applicable to the institution in question. It does not matter whether it has been established by or for a linguistic minority community. It is not the contention before me that the said Rules or the extent thereof controlling the management of the institution in question is violative of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the 1st question is answered against the petitioner and it is declared that in so far as the School in question is concerned, it is bound by the said Rules and is obliged strict compliance of the said Rules. ( 13 ) NOW I come to the next question. Rule 28 of the said Rules, however, does not apply to unaided institution. Since the dearness allowance payable to the employees of the institution in question is paid by the State Government, the State Government in the form of such payment of dearness allowance grants aid to the institution in question. Accordingly provisions of Rule 28 of the said Rules are applicable to the institution in question. The relevant provisions of the said Rules, with which we are concerned in the instant case, are set out below: - "28. Accordingly provisions of Rule 28 of the said Rules are applicable to the institution in question. The relevant provisions of the said Rules, with which we are concerned in the instant case, are set out below: - "28. Powers of Committee- (1) In an aided institution the Committee shall, subject to the provisions of any Grant-in-aid Scheme or Pay Revision Scheme or any order or direction or guide-lines issued by the State Government or the Director in connection therewith and in force for the time being, have the power- i. to appoint teachers and other employees on permanent basis against permanent vacancies, if available, within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees approval for such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director or any other officer authorised by him, ordinarily within a fortnight from the date of decision of the Committee; ii. to appoint teachers and other employees on temporary basis against permanent or temporary vacancies, if available within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees, approval for such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director or any other officer authorised by him, ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Committee; iii. to appoint teachers and other employees on temporary basis against permanent or temporary vacancies, if available within the sanctioned strength of teachers and other employees, approval for such appointment being thereafter sought for from the Director or any other officer authorised by him, ordinarily within a week from the date of decision of the Committee; iii. to extend, if it thinks fit, the service of any teacher or other employee, who was in service on the 31st December, 1985, but did not opt for the revised scales of pay introduced with effect from the 1st January, 1986, or having opted for such revised scales of pay, subsequently withdraws such option in terms of any order of the State Government in this behalf, beyond the age of 60 years, being the age of superannuation, on a year to year basis, but not beyond the age of 65 years; provided that the teacher or the employee concerned is physically fit and mentally alert and that the approval for such extension shall be sought for from the Director or any other officer authorised by him, within a period of 15 days from the date of decision of the Committee; provided further that the teacher or other employee, who withdraws his option for the revised scales of pay introduced with effect from the 1st January, 1986, in terms of any order of the State Government in this behalf, shall be deemed to have not opted for the said revised scales of pay; provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in this clause, such teacher or employee may opt for any revised scale of pay under any subsequent Pay Revision Scheme, if he agrees to retire in accordance with the terms of such scheme or at the age of superannuation for the time being in force, where there is no such term. " 1. If the officer authorised by the Director under sub-rule (1) does not approve of the appointment or extension of service in any case coming under Clause (i) or Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), as the case may be, he shall refer the case to the Director and in the 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. 2. 2. Where the Committee does not recommend extension of the service of a teacher or an employee under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), it shall record specific reasons therefore and the persons concerned may make its representation to the Director through the District Inspector/inspectress of Schools concerned and so far as the Committee is concerned, the decision of the Director shall be final. 3. Both in aided and un-aided Institutions the Committee shall have the power, subject to the prior approval of the Board, to remove or dismiss permanent or temporary teachers and other employees. For this purpose the committee shall first draw up formal proceedings and issue charge sheet to the employee concerned, and offer him reasonable facilities for defending himself. The teacher or the employee proposed to be proceeded against shall submit his explanation, ordinarily, within a fortnight of the receipt of the charge sheet. The Committee shall send to the Board all relevant papers including the charge-sheet, explanations submitted by the teacher or the employee concerned and the reasons for which the Committee decides in favour of taking disciplinary action. If the Board considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking disciplinary action the Committee shall issue formal notice calling upon the teacher or the employee concerned to show cause, ordinarily within a fortnight, why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. The Committee shall, then, send again to the Board all relevant papers including the explanation submitted by the teachers or the employee concerned and the recommendations of the Committee for the action proposed to be taken. So far as the Committee is concerned, the decision of the Board shall be final. Provided that the Board may delegate to any Committee constituted under section 24 of the Act the powers and functions conferred on the Board by this sub-rule. " ( 14 ) THE above Rule, therefore, makes distinct distinction between appointment, extension and dismissal. Therefore, while extension is not appointment, non-extension is not dismissal. ( 15 ) THE said Rules came into effect on 15th July, 1969, which was later amended from time to time. " ( 14 ) THE above Rule, therefore, makes distinct distinction between appointment, extension and dismissal. Therefore, while extension is not appointment, non-extension is not dismissal. ( 15 ) THE said Rules came into effect on 15th July, 1969, which was later amended from time to time. Prior thereto it having brought to the notice of the Education Directorate that in some cases extension of service is not recommended by the Managing Committee, Ad-hoc Committee or Administrator without any reason, on 3rd April, 1969, the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal issued an order which reads as follows: - "the undersigned has to state that at present extension of service is allowed to teachers including Headmasters/headmistresses of aided Secondary Schools by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal on the recommendation of the Managing Committees, Ad-hoc Committees or Administrators on year to year basis upto the age of 65 years. It has been brought to the notice of the Education Directorate that in some cases extension of service is not recommended by the Managing Committee, Ad-hoc Committees or Administrators without assigning any reason. Sometimes they refuse to make any recommendation whatsoever. In the circumstances it has been decided that henceforth the teacher including Headmasters/headmistresses concerned, of aided Secondary Schools will have the option to submit a representation to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal if the Managing Committees, Ad-hoc Committees, or Administrators of the Schools do not recommend extension of their service without assigning any reason or refuse to make any recommendation whatsoever. The Director of Public Instruction will consider each case on its merit. The decision of the Director of Public Instruction in such cases will be binding on the Managing Committees, Ad-hoc Committees or Administrators concerned. All aided Secondary Schools under his or her jurisdiction may please be informed accordingly. " ( 16 ) THE purpose and intent of the said order as would appear therefrom was that if the Managing Committee does not recommend extension, the person seeking such extension may approach the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal whereupon the Director of Public Instruction shall consider each such case on merit. That decision of the Government is the fore-runner of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules. That decision of the Government is the fore-runner of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules. If the said sub-rule is construed in the background of the said decision of the Government, it would appear that although the Managing Committee has been empowered to grant extension but in case of non-grant the Managing Committee has been made to record reasons and the person who has been affected by such decision of the Managing Committee has been granted a right to make a representation to the Director and the Director has been authorised to take the final decision. Can such decision be taken without considering the merit? I do not think so. Therefore, although in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules it has not been provided that the Director is obliged to consider the case of rejection on its merit, the same is implied and it is obligatory on the part of the Director to consider each such case on its merit. ( 17 ) SPECIFIC power has been preserved upon the Director and upon his delegates not to approve such extension. In the event approval is not accorded to the extension granted by the Managing Committee, it is obligatory upon the Director or the officer authorised by him to communicate the reasons therefor. The object of giving reasons is to let the Managing Committee, who has recommended extension as well as the person entitled to extension, both of whom are in favour of extension and there is no dispute inter se them, to know why such extension is not permissible. While, however, when the Committee has not favoured extension of the person who is seeking such extension, the Committee has been asked to justify its decision not to recommend extension by giving reasons and the person who has been affected by such decision of the Managing Committee, has been granted a right to make a representation against such decision of the Managing Committee not to recommend extension and the Director has been appointed as the final Adjudicator to determine whether the reason so given not to recommend extension is justified or not. Unless the person who has sought extension is made aware as to why he is being denied the extension, he would not be in a position to make an effective representation against such a decision not to recommended his extension. Unless the person who has sought extension is made aware as to why he is being denied the extension, he would not be in a position to make an effective representation against such a decision not to recommended his extension. Therefore, although it is not expressly stated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the Managing Committee to furnish reasons not to recommend extension to the person who has been affected by such decision in addition to the Director. On receipt of such reasons the person affected by such decision would then make a representation to the Director. The Managing Committee whose decision not to extend is being sought to be reversed by the representation so made by the person affected by such decision must, therefore, also have a copy of such representation and the same must be implied in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules. When the Managing Committee has recorded reasons not to extend, the representation to be made by the person affected by such decision would seek to demonstrate that the reasons so given by the Managing Committee are no reason at all. This may be on factual score or may be on legal propositions. The Managing Committee, however, has not been empowered to give a reply to the representation of the person affected by its decision. The facts brought in the representation may be incorrect facts. The legal propositions cited in the representation may not be applicable. Would it, therefore, be proper for the Director to decide such representation and reverse the decision of the Managing Committee on the basis thereof without giving a hearing to the Managing Committee? I do not think so, more so when the decision of the Director shall be final. Similarly the Director may reject the representation and uphold the decision of the Managing Committee and if such a decision is taken, the same would be the final decision. Would it, therefore, be proper to decide such representation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person making such representation? I do not think so. Therefore, it should be implied in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules that it is incumbent upon the Director to hear both the Managing Committee as well as the person making the representation before he decides the case on merit. I do not think so. Therefore, it should be implied in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules that it is incumbent upon the Director to hear both the Managing Committee as well as the person making the representation before he decides the case on merit. That was the spirit of the decision of 3rd April, 1969 and that has been provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 of the said Rules although may not be in so many words. ( 18 ) BY sub-rule (1) (iii) of Rule 28 of the said Rules while power has been granted in favour of the Managing Committee to extend service of any of its employee, such power, however, has been restricted to the extend mentioned in the said sub-rule itself. If the employee concerned was in service on 31st December, 1985 and opted for the revised scales of pay introduced with effect from 1st January, 1986 but subsequently did not withdraw such option, the Managing Committee even if wants, it cannot extend the service of such an employee. Similarly if the employee concerned is not physically fit or mentally alert, even if the Managing Committee wants, it cannot extend the service of such an employee. Therefore, to exercise the power by the Managing Committee to extend the service of an employee, the employee must have the following :- (i)he should have been in the service on 31st December, 1985; (ii)he should not have opted for the revised scales of pay introduced with effect from 1st January, 1986; (iii)if he has opted for such revised scales of pay, he has subsequently withdrawn such option; (iv)he is physically fit; and (v)he is mentally alert. ( 19 ) THESE are the basic qualifications for an employee to seek extension. Since the Managing Committee has been debarred to extend services of an employee who does not posses these qualifications it goes without saying that such an employee is not entitled to apply for extension. If the employee has those qualifications he becomes entitled to apply and the Managing Committee becomes obliged to consider his extension. Ultimately, however, the extension has to be granted by the Managing Committee. Such grant will, however, do nothing unless approval is accorded by the Director. If the employee has those qualifications he becomes entitled to apply and the Managing Committee becomes obliged to consider his extension. Ultimately, however, the extension has to be granted by the Managing Committee. Such grant will, however, do nothing unless approval is accorded by the Director. Merely because the employee is qualified, it is not obligatory on the part of the Managing Committee to extend the services of such qualified employee. If that was the intention the Rule in question would have been framed otherwise. Despite the employee being qualified to seek extension, he has not been granted an automatic extension. The Managing Committee has been granted the power to decide whether to grant or not to grant extension. Despite the Managing Committee granting extension to such qualified person, power has been preserved upon the Director not to accord approval to such extension. Unless the employee is qualified to seek extension, his case for extension cannot be recommended by the Managing Committee. Despite such recommendation the Director can refuse to given approval to such extension. That itself show that even if the employee is qualified he is not ipso facto entitled to extension. Similarly the Managing Committee has been empowered not to extend the service of an employee. The Managing Committee has been empowered to grant extension only to a qualified person and accordingly is entitled to consider the case of only qualified persons. That also show that the Managing Committee has been granted power to reject a prayer for extension despite the person being otherwise eligible, but then the Managing Committee has been asked to give reasons therefor. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, merely because the petitioner was eligible, i. e. he was in service on 31st December, 1985 and did not opt for revised scales of pay introduced with effect from 1st January, 1986 and was physically fit and mentally alert, he did not become ipso facto entitled to the extension and the Managing Committee had enough power to refuse to grant such extension, but was obliged to gave reason therefor. It has given such reasons. It does not appear from the records that such reasons were disclosed to the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 also has not brought on record what representation he made against those reasons. ( 21 ) I, therefore, called for the records. The records were accordingly produced. It has given such reasons. It does not appear from the records that such reasons were disclosed to the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 also has not brought on record what representation he made against those reasons. ( 21 ) I, therefore, called for the records. The records were accordingly produced. From that it appears that on 14th July, 1998 the respondent No. 6 made a representation to the Director through the District Inspector of Schools (SE) to the effect as follows :- "most humbly and respectfully I beg to submit as under for your kind consideration and favourable order. That I am an approved Assistant Teacher of the said School Shree Vishudha Nand Saraswati Vidyalaya, 160a, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 007; that I am going to completed second term extension of my services on 12. 11. 98 which was granted to me under Rule 28 (3) of the Management Rules; that I am physically fit and mentally alert to discharge my duties as Assistant Teacher. A Medical Certificate in original as a testimony of my physical fitness and mental alertness is annexed herewith. That the then Managing Committee of the School already passed a resolution in the year 1990-91 that I would continue in service till I attain the age of 65 years as I have been drawing pre-revised scale of pay 86 i. e. old pay and have not opted for revised scale of pay 86. That condition for grant of extension of services for teachers who have not opted for revised pay Scale 86 are entitled to get extension of services till they attain the age of 65 years provided they are physically fit and mentally alert. That I already submitted an application to the Secretary of the School by registered post on 17. 4. 98 vide Registration No. 2451 from Beadon Street Post Office with Medical Certificate. That till today no response to my said application was made by the Secretary of the School and there is reason to believe that the Secretary and the President of the School are bent upon to cause me injury by not recommending my case of extension of my services for the 3rd term. Under the circumstances I must humbly request you to grant me extension of my services for the 3rd term i. e. from 12. 11. 98 to 11. 11. 99. Under the circumstances I must humbly request you to grant me extension of my services for the 3rd term i. e. from 12. 11. 98 to 11. 11. 99. I shall be highly grateful to you. " ( 22 ) ALTHOUGH in the said representation it has been mentioned by the respondent No. 6 that the Managing Committee has passed a resolution in the year 1990-91 that the respondent No. 6 would continue in service till he attains the age of 65 years but no copy of such resolution was forwarded to the Director alongwith the said representation, for the same has been produced before me. ( 23 ) BE that as it may, the Director then passed an order on 20th November, 1998 to the effect as follows: - "government OF WEST BENGAL directorate of School Education grant-in-aid Section bikash Bhavan (7th floor) salt Lake City, Cal-91. Memo No. 1237 GA/4g-436/81 Dated Calcutta 20. 11. 98 from : the Director of School Education, west Bengal. To : the District Inspector of Schools (SE) calcutta. 26 and 26/7 Hindusthan Park, calcutta-29. Sub : extension of service of Sri Madhusudan Dubey (3rd term), Asst. Teacher, Sri Vishudhanand Saraswati Vidyalaya, Cal-7 (D. A. Getting School.) ref: His No. 444/d dated 6. 11. 98. With reference to the above, the undersigned has to state that after verification of original records he may approve the extension of service of Sri Madhusudan Dubey (3rd term) for the period from 12. 11. 98 to 11. 11. 99 subject to the condition that the concerned teacher remain physically fit and mentally alert during the period of extension. S/d- for Director of School education, West Bengal. " ( 24 ) IN the representation to the Director the respondent No. 6 contended that he applied to the Managing Committee for extension, which application was posted on 17th April, 1998. In the concerned resolution of the Managing Committee it has been stated that the letter dated 27th April, 1998 referred by the respondent No. 6 in his letter dated 4th August, 1998 has not been received by the School Authorities. Whether any such letter was written and whether the same was received is a question of fact, which could not be decided without going into the merit of the controversy. Whether any such letter was written and whether the same was received is a question of fact, which could not be decided without going into the merit of the controversy. The members of the Managing Committee at their meeting, which resulted in the subject resolution, expressed that the respondent No. 6 is not interested in education. There is no contrary assertion thereto in the representation. The members of the Managing Committee in their said resolution expressed that the presence of the respondent No. 6 could vitiate academic atmosphere of the School, there is no contrary assertion in the representation. The Members of the Managing Committee also recorded that respondent No. 6 has shown dis-respect to the Headmaster. There is also no contrary assertion in the representation. There was a serious charge as recorded by the Members of the Managing Committee that the respondent No. 6 is practicing as a lawyer, that has not been denied in the representation. These are questions of fact. If those are denied, the matter must be decided upon merit after conducting necessary investigation. Can that be done in the absence of the Managing Committee or in the absence of the respondent No. 6? I do not think so. ( 25 ) ADMITTEDLY the respondent No. 6 was not made aware of the reasons for not extending his services by the Managing Committee, he, therefore, had no opportunity to make a proper and effective representation. In the representation that was made by him he barely pointed out that he is eligible for extension. In addition thereto he contended that the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School in question are inimical to him. The Director did not at all apply his mind to the reasons given by the Managing Committee not to extend the services of the respondent No. 6, nor he tried to find out whether the Secretary and the President of the Managing Committee are inimical to the respondent No. 6. He mechanically allowed the extension subject to the respondent No. 6 remaining physically fit and mentally alert. The matter, therefore, appears to have been decided in a manner not warranted by the law on the subject. ( 26 ) I, therefore, quash the order of the Director extending the services of the respondent No. 6 for the 3rd term for the period 12th November, 1998 to 11th November, 1999. The matter, therefore, appears to have been decided in a manner not warranted by the law on the subject. ( 26 ) I, therefore, quash the order of the Director extending the services of the respondent No. 6 for the 3rd term for the period 12th November, 1998 to 11th November, 1999. I also quash the similar order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Calcutta on 1st December, 1998. It is surprising to note that in the said order it has been stated that approval to the extension of services of the respondent No. 6 have been granted for the said period on the recommendation of the Managing Committee of the School, when the Managing Committee of the School in fact refused to grant any such extension. It shows how mechanically the matter was dealt with. ( 27 ) IN any other circumstances I would have directed the Managing Committee to furnish reasons given by it not to extend the services of the respondent No. 6, to the respondent No. 6, but since now the reasons are well within the knowledge of the respondent No. 6, there is no necessity for giving any such direction and accordingly to expedite the matter I permit respondent No. 6 to make a representation to the Director within a period of 15 days from the date hereof against such reasons and at the same time to serve a copy of such representation to the Managing Committee of the School within the same period and direct the Director to decide such representation in accordance with law after giving hearing to the Managing Committee of the School as well as to the respondent No. 6 at an early date and to come to a final conclusion as to whether the respondent No. 6 should or should not be granted extension and to pass appropriate order on the basis of such decision at an early date. It is made clear that such decision being amanable to judicial review it shall be open to the Managing Committee as well as to the respondent No. 6 to challenge the same. It is made clear that such decision being amanable to judicial review it shall be open to the Managing Committee as well as to the respondent No. 6 to challenge the same. ( 28 ) THE extension of service of the respondent No. 6 is confirmed upto 11th November, 1998 and accordingly whatever monetary benefits to which the respondent No. 6 is entitled to for such extension, if not paid, should be paid within a period of 15 days from the date hereof. This disposes of the writ petition and all connected applications without any order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties petition disposed oF.