JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. 1. GOLGRAM Golam Imam High School was being managed by the Managing Committee in which the appellant was the Secretary. The term of the said Managing Committee was to expire on February 16, 2009. Under the appropriate Rules the out-going Managing Committee had an obligation to take steps for reconstitution of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, steps were taken. The Headmaster of the concerned school published a time schedule for holding election for the next Managing Committee as would appear from the programme schedule appearing at page 25 of the paper book. As per the said programme the election was to be held on December 14, 2008. 2. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the Headmaster, contends on instruction that initially apprehending breach of peace he asked for police assistance. The concerned Officer-in- Charge did not act upon the same. The Officer-in- Charge, however, by a letter dated November 27, 2008 appearing at page 80 of the paper book informed the Headmaster that there was every possibility of breach of peace at the time of holding the election and, as such, requested the Headmaster to change the election schedule. Apprehending such breach of peace, the Headmaster rescheduled the election and issued a notice dated November 29, 2008 appearing at page 27 of the paper book. The Election was rescheduled and was duly held on January 11, 2009. There were about 750 students in the concerned school having almost identical number of guardians. Out of them 6 guardians being the respondent Nos.1 to 6 approached the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by making a grievance appearing at pages 30-31 of the paper book and thus raised an election dispute. Such letter depicts that the objectors took exception to the rescheduling of the election programme, that too, at the instance of the Officer-in- Charge who had no authority to interfere with the matter. It was also complained that no information of change of schedule was informed to them. The said letter was posted on January 28, 2009 as would appear from page 35 of the paper book. They immediately approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition affirmed on February 06, 2009, inter alia, asking for cancellation of the election in guardians' category. They also asked for order of injunction restraining office bearers' election. The said letter was posted on January 28, 2009 as would appear from page 35 of the paper book. They immediately approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition affirmed on February 06, 2009, inter alia, asking for cancellation of the election in guardians' category. They also asked for order of injunction restraining office bearers' election. The learned Single Judge passed interim orders from time to time directing stay of office bearers' election. The learned Judge also asked Drawing and Disbursing Officer appointed in the said school to carry out the day to day affairs. We are told, although the writ petition was disposed of finally by the judgment and order dated September 17, 2009, the said Drawing and Disbursing Officer is still managing the affairs of the school. 3. The writ petition was finally disposed of by His Lordship's judgment and order dated September 17, 2009 appearing at pages 85-88 the paper book. 4. ON perusal of the said judgment and order, it appears that the learned Single Judge directed a fresh election of the Managing Committee. His Lordship, however, did not assign any reason why fresh election was required to be held although the writ petition pertained to a dispute with regard to guardians category only. His Lordship also directed process of pension papers of the Headmaster, although not being a subject-matter therein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the out-going Secretary came up in appeal before us. 5. APPEAL was admitted pursuant to the order of His Lordship, the election was held in teaching and non-teaching category on November 29, 2009. However, the guardians category election could not be held in view of the order of stay passed by us. 6. WE have heard Mr. A.S. Roy, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr. K. J. Yusuf, learned Counsel, appearing for the State respondents. Mr. Ekramul Bari has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. According to Mr. Bari, the Secretary, a lone member of the out-going Managing Committee, did not have any locus standi to prefer the appeal. He cannot be said to be "person aggrieved". Mr. Bari further contends that the appeal was filed November 16, 2009 whereas the Secretary became functus officio on February 16, 2009. According to Mr. Bari, the Secretary, a lone member of the out-going Managing Committee, did not have any locus standi to prefer the appeal. He cannot be said to be "person aggrieved". Mr. Bari further contends that the appeal was filed November 16, 2009 whereas the Secretary became functus officio on February 16, 2009. He has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji, Bashir Ahmed and Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 . 7. APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Roy contends that the decision in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) would rather support his contention that the appeal was maintainable. Mr. Roy has referred to the various paragraphs of the said decision to place before us the interpretation of the phrase "person aggrieved" as done by the Apex Court in the said decision. Mr. Roy contends that there is a thin line of distinction between the phrase "person aggrieved" and "stranger". According to him, the appellant was a party in the writ proceeding. It was his duty to see that the next Managing Committee was constituted being the Secretary of the outgoing Managing Committee. It was his obligation to hand over charge to the newly elected Committee after the election was held. Hence he could not be said "stranger" to the proceeding. 8. ON merits Mr. Roy contends that election was held as per the rescheduled programme. Notices were duly posted as would appear from the receipts annexed to the pleadings. Out of 750 guardians more than 500 guardians voted on the rescheduled date. None complained with regard to none-receipt of notice save and except 6 guardians being the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. In any event, their objection was to be considered and adjudicated upon by the Appropriate Authority being the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Hence the learned Judge should not have entertained the writ petition filed just after seven days of filing of the election dispute before the Appropriate Authority. Mr. Roy, however, contends that the writ petition pertains to guardians category although His Lordship directed fresh election in all categories which were beyond jurisdiction. Mr. Roy prays for setting aside the judgment and order passed by His Lordship. 9. Mr. Mr. Roy, however, contends that the writ petition pertains to guardians category although His Lordship directed fresh election in all categories which were beyond jurisdiction. Mr. Roy prays for setting aside the judgment and order passed by His Lordship. 9. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6, on the other hand, contends that the appellant might be a party to the proceeding. However, once his term expired he had no interest in the matter and, as such, he could not prefer the instant appeal. Mr. Bari has also relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Adwaitya Kumar Maity and Ors. v. W. B. Board of Secondary Education and Ors., reported in 71 CWN 396 and an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A. No. 177 of 2002. 10. Mr. Bari contends that the learned Judge thought it fit that when the earlier Managing Committee had, admittedly, become functus officio the fresh election should be held and accordingly directed so. Mr. Bari also contends that there was no occasion for the Headmaster to reschedule the programme that too, at the instance of the Officer-in- Charge who had no authority to suggest such. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the Headmaster, supports the appellant and contends that the Headmaster had to reschedule the programme apprehending breach of peace. They were apprehensive of unpleasant incident on the day of election and, as such, requisitioned police force when the Officer-in- Charge advised him to reschedule the programme. Mr. Chatterjee further contends on instruction that the concerned District Inspector was also informed about such reschedule and the guardians were duly informed by appropriate notices. 11. Mr. K. J. Yusuf, learned Counsel, appearing for the State also supports the contention of Mr. Roy and Mr. Chatterjee. He contends that the Officer-in- Charge has the obligation to see that no breach of peace takes place within his jurisdiction. Apprehending breach of peace he advised the Headmaster to reschedule the programme which was well within his domain. According to Mr. Yusuf, no illegality was committed by the Headmaster in rescheduling the programme as per the advice of the Officer-in- Charge. 12. WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The appellant was, admittedly, a party to the writ proceeding. According to Mr. Yusuf, no illegality was committed by the Headmaster in rescheduling the programme as per the advice of the Officer-in- Charge. 12. WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The appellant was, admittedly, a party to the writ proceeding. He was supposed to hand over charge to the newly elected Committee and, as such, it cannot be said that he had nothing to do in the matter of reconstitution of the Managing Committee. It is also his onerous obligation to see that a new Managing Committee comes and the earlier Managing Committee hands over charge to the newly elected Managing Committee. On that score, we cannot say that the appellant did not have any locus standi to prefer appeal before this Court. The contention raised by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 on that score is thus rejected. On merits, we find that the respondents duly raised a dispute before the Board. It is for the Board to consider the same and Board should be given adequate opportunity to deal with the same. Mr. Bari further contends that this aspect of rescheduling cannot be gone into by the Board. We are unable to accept such contention. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in their wisdom approached the Board being the Appropriate Authority raising an election dispute. Once such election dispute was raised, it is the duty of the Board to dispose of the same and they must be given adequate opportunity to do the same. In our view, the learned Judge should not have interfered with the matter. 13. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer is appointed for a limited purpose to draw the grant from the State and disburse the same to the teaching and non-teaching staff. How the Drawing and Disbursing Officer could manage day to day affairs of the school, is not clear to us. The writ petition pertains to a complaint made by 6 guardians only. The complaint was two folds: (i) the programme rescheduled at the instance of the Officer- in- Charge was wrongful, (ii) no notice of such rescheduling was given to the said respondents. 14. There was no complaint with regard to holding of election in other category. How the entire election could be upset and a fresh election could be directed to be held is also a question whose answer is not clear to us. 14. There was no complaint with regard to holding of election in other category. How the entire election could be upset and a fresh election could be directed to be held is also a question whose answer is not clear to us. The appeal must succeed and is thus allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 15. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is directed to dispose of the election dispute filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 appearing at pages 30-31 of the paper book upon giving hearing to the rival parties and/or their authorised representatives as well as the School Authority in accordance with law. 16. IT is expected that the Board should act expeditiously and communicate their decision at an early date. The appeal is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.