Amitava Roy, J;- The petitioner seeks to impeach the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Educa­tion (Higher) Department annulling the Reso­lutions dated 29.11.2009, 24.8.2010 and 19.11.2010 of the Governing Body of the Hamidabad College (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the College') and consequently allowing the appeals filed by the respondent No.4 against the same. An appropriate writ has also been sought for restraining the offi­cial respondents from foraying into the affairs of the College. A direction to allow him to continue as the in-Charge Principal of the in­stitution in terms of his appointment order dated 29.11.2009 by the Governing Body of the College has also been sought for. 2. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, Sen­ior Advocate assisted by Mr. I.H. Saikia, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Standing Counsel, Edu­cation Department for the State respondents; Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and Mr. N. Choudhury, Advocate for the respondent No.5. 3. The rival pleadings, briefly though, are indispensable to sketch the backdrop of facts. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science of the Col­lege by the Governing Body thereof vide or­der dated 7.11.2000. The respondent No.4 was also appointed by the Governing Body as a Lecturer in Mathematics by order dated 16.8.96. He was, thereafter, allowed to work as in-Charge Principal vide order dated 5.3.98. The petitioner has asserted that the institution is a venture one and has not been provincialised till date. It is, thus, a private institution beyond the purview of the Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner has averred on oath that this College does not receive deficit Grants-in-Aid or ad-hoc Grants-in-Aid as contemplated under Rule 1 (3) of the Rules. Though it is in receipt of financial assistance from the Government, the same is not demon­strative of its status as an institution governed by the Rules. The Governing Body of the College vide its Resolution No. 3 dated 29.11.2009 relieved the respondent No.4 of the responsibility of the office of the Principal of the institution on the ground of corruption, misappropriation of college funds etc. and by a separate Resolution of the same date ap­pointed the petitioner as the in-Charge Prin­cipal of the institution. The Governing Body of the College vide its Resolution No. 3 dated 29.11.2009 relieved the respondent No.4 of the responsibility of the office of the Principal of the institution on the ground of corruption, misappropriation of college funds etc. and by a separate Resolution of the same date ap­pointed the petitioner as the in-Charge Prin­cipal of the institution. The petitioner, accord­ingly, assumed the new responsibility and has asserted that he is continuing with the said assignment since then till date. 4. The respondent No.4 meanwhile being aggrieved by his ouster from the office of the Principal of the College instituted Title Suit No. 476/2009 in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri but though endeavoured by him, the learned Court did not grant any injunction as sought for. He also instituted WP(C) No. 2117 2010 before this Court seeking interference with the order dated 29.11.2009 and also a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Depart­ment to dispose of his representation dated 21.12.2009 laid before him. WP(G) No. 211/2010 was disposed of on 11.1.2010 by this Court leaving the respondent No.4 at lib­erty to file a fresh appeal on the issue before the Government and directed the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Department to dispose of the same within a period of six weeks. The respondent No.4, in view of this development, thereafter filed a petition for withdrawal of the civil suit but as he did not press the same, the suit was dis­missed for default on 26.2.2010. 5. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, however, for­warded the appeals dated 21.12.2009 and 12.1.2010 of the respondent No.4 to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for dis­posal. According to the petitioner, the afore­mentioned authority thereafter required him to submit the old Governing Body's records. As those were not in his custody, he along with Sri Satindra Narayan Das, President of the Governing Body appeared before the said authority and acquainted him with their inability. The Director of Higher Education, Assam thereafter by order dated 23.7.20 10 allowed the respondent No.4 to continue to act as the in-Charge Principal of the College. Accord­ing to the petitioner, before passing such or­der neither he nor the President of the Gov­erning Body was heard. The Director of Higher Education, Assam thereafter by order dated 23.7.20 10 allowed the respondent No.4 to continue to act as the in-Charge Principal of the College. Accord­ing to the petitioner, before passing such or­der neither he nor the President of the Gov­erning Body was heard. The Governing Body of the College, however, by its Resolution dated 31.7.2010 allowed the writ petitioner to continue as the in-Charge Principal of the College noting inter alia the fact that the re­spondent No.4 had allegedly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the col­lege funds and that in connection therewith Fakirganj P.S. Case No. 67/10 under Sec­tion 406/408/420/468/506IPC was pend­ing against him. Meanwhile, however, the Di­rector of Higher Education, Assam initiated Fakirganj P.S. Case No. 59/2010 under Sec­tion 409 IPC against the present authorities of the College as well as the respondent No.4 for the loss of records of the proceedings of the old Governing Body. In that case the po­lice after investigation submitted a report hold­ing only the respondent No.4 responsible qua the allegation. The petitioner has asserted that since after 29,11.2009 the respondent No.4 has abandoned the College and though re­peated notices had been issued to him by the Governing Body, he has deliberately avoided the same, hi the above premise, being faced with the order dated 23.7.2010 of the Direc­tor of Higher Education, Assam, the petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No. 4497/2010 and this Court by its order dated 13.8.2010 interfered therewith and directed him and the respondent No.4 to approach the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Educa­tion (Higher) Department. The aforemen­tioned authority was thereby directed to dis­pose of the appeal of the respondent No.4 within a period of two months after affording opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent No.4. 6. While the matter rested at that, vide Resolution dated 24.8.2010 of the Govern­ing Body of the College, the respondent No.4 was placed under suspension on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty since 30.11.2009 and misappropriation of college funds. Alleging that the concerned authority was out to dispose of the appeal of the re­spondent No.4 without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the petitioner instituted WP(C) 5018/2010 and during the pendency of the this proceeding, the Addi­tional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department passed the order dated 9.9.2010 allowing the appeal. Alleging that the concerned authority was out to dispose of the appeal of the re­spondent No.4 without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the petitioner instituted WP(C) 5018/2010 and during the pendency of the this proceeding, the Addi­tional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department passed the order dated 9.9.2010 allowing the appeal. WP(C) 5420/2010 was Filed by the petitioner chal­lenging this order. 7. The petitioner has alleged that on 17.9.2010, inspite of the order of status-quo passed in WP(C) 5018/2010, the respond­ent No.4 forcefully occupied the office of the Principal of the College for which the petitioner lodged an FIR on the basis of which Fakirganj P.S. Case No. 140/2010 under Section 143/147/148/1497 542/325/506/294/380 IPC was registered. In this back­ground though the Governing Body of the college on 18.9.2010 resolved that the peti­tioner would continue to be the in-Charge Principal of the College, the respondent No.4 by deploying goons and his cohorts prevented the petitioner by show offeree from entering the College premises. 8. Whereas, thereafter by order dated 9.11.2010 this Court disposed of WP(C) 5018/2010 and WP(C) 5420/2010, thus, interfering with the order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Education Department, the Governing Body of the College by is Resolu­tion dated 18.11.2010 terminated the serv­ices of the respondent No.4 as a Lecturer of the institution. The impugned order dated 6.4.2011 was thereafter passed in purported compliance of the order dated 9.11.2010 passed by this Court. According to the peti­tioner, thereby the concerned State authority disposed of the appeals dated 12.1.2010,15. 11.2010 and 9.12.2010 filed by the respond­ent No.4 in patent disregard ard non-com­pliance of the order dated 9.11.2010. 9. The respondent No.3, the Director of Higher Education, Assam has endorsed the application of the provisions of the Rules to the College. The answering respondent has pleaded that the institution has been granted financial assistance construable as ad-hoc Grants-in-Aid since the year 2007 and, there­fore, it squarely comes within the purview of the Rules. With profuse reference to the ob­servations made in the order dated 6.4.2011, the said authority affirmed the validity thereof in toto. The respondent asserted further that the Governing Body of the College had been constituted by the then Director of Higher Education, Assam as per the power conferred under Rule-3. With profuse reference to the ob­servations made in the order dated 6.4.2011, the said authority affirmed the validity thereof in toto. The respondent asserted further that the Governing Body of the College had been constituted by the then Director of Higher Education, Assam as per the power conferred under Rule-3. The answering respondent, however, referred to certain irregularities re­corded in the report of the Audit Department vis-a-vis the accounts of the College for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2009. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 5,48,684/- had been received by the College as financial assist­ance and though the amount was drawn and credited in the General Fund Account but not recorded in the General Fund Cash Book, yet, the same was not utilized for the purpose for which the same had been sanctioned. 10. In his counter, the respondent No.4 while maintaining that his initial appointment on 16.8.96 as Lecturer in Mathematics in the College had been by the Secretary of the Sponsoring Body, has reiterated the facturn of receipt of financial assistance by the Col­lege since 2006 from the Government mak­ing it subject to the provisions of the Rules. Referring to an Office Memorandum dated 9.6.2005 the answering respondent has in­sisted that financial assistance, deficit Grants-in-Aid or ad-hoc Grants-in-Aid are synony­mous and that the Government under the Rules has the power to control and manage the af­fairs of the institution. Adecision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 21.6.2010 in W.A. No. 181/2010 has also been referred to. According to the answering respondent, the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 of the Gov­erning Body was non-est having been taken by a Body the term whereof had expired on 9.10.2009. While stoutly denying the allega­tion of corruption and misappropriation of college funds levelleled against him, the an­swering respondent insisted that he had been discharging his duties as in-Charge Principal of the College with effect from 13.4.2011 uninterruptedly. He denied the receipt of any notice from the Governing Body of the Col­lege and also questioned the legality of the Resolution dated 24.8.2010 of the Govern­ing Body for want of quorum. He maintained that the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam was valid as the petitioner avoided personal hear­ing inspite of opportunity therefor being af­forded to him. He maintained that the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam was valid as the petitioner avoided personal hear­ing inspite of opportunity therefor being af­forded to him. He also alleged the petition­er's absence from the College from 17.9.10 to 13.11.2010 and also charged him with the act of fabrication and manufacture of the Resolution dated 27.10.2010. According to him, the impugned order dated 6.4.2011 is valid and that the Resolutions dated 19.11.2009,24.8.2010 and 19.11.2010 had been rightly interfered with. 11. The respondent No.5, Governing Body of the College, in its affidavit affirmed by its President Sri Satindra Narayan Das has assailed the tenability of the order dated 6.4.2011 being not based on records. The respondent has asserted on oath that the rel­evant Proceedings Book had been produced before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Depart­ment and his attention was also drawn to the relevant Resolutions at the time of hearing of the appeal. But the same were lost sight of while passing the impugned order. The de­ponent ratified the Resolutions involved and maintained that the required number of mem­bers of the Governing Body were present in the concerned proceedings. Referring inter alia to the Resolution dated 17.1.2010 of the Governing Body, the answering respondent held the respondent No.4 liable for an amount of Rs. 16,48,2197-which he was asked to refund but to no avail. The deponent referred to G.R. Case No. 67/2010 under Section 406/408/420/468/506IPC stemming from the FIR that was lodged with the Fakirganj Police Station in connection therewith. The Resolution dated 24.8.2010, according to this respondent, was also validly passed in a meet­ing having the required quorum after taking serious note of the acts of insubordination, indiscipline and unauthorized absence of the respondent No.4 for a long period. The Reso­lution dated 18.11.2010 terminating the serv­ices of the respondent No.4 was also insisted to be valid and warranted in the facts and cir­cumstances. The respondent has maintained as well that the respondent No.2, Commis­sioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Department had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeals of the respondent No.4 against the Resolu­tions dated 24.82010 and 18.11.2010 on the basis of which the order of termination dated 19.11.2010 had been passed/issued. 12. Mr. The respondent has maintained as well that the respondent No.2, Commis­sioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Department had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appeals of the respondent No.4 against the Resolu­tions dated 24.82010 and 18.11.2010 on the basis of which the order of termination dated 19.11.2010 had been passed/issued. 12. Mr. Choudhury has insistently argued that the College being unmistakably a private institution, the Rules are not applicable to it and, therefore, as the departmental authori­ties have no jurisdiction over its internal af­fairs, the impugned order is liable to be inter­fered with on that count alone. According to him, the College is neither provincialised nor are the posts therein sanctioned by the Gov­ernment and that, therefore, receipt of finan­cial assistance by it per se does not render it to be a Non-Government institution within the contemplation of the Rules. Apart from con­tending that the impugned order is not in con­formity with the directions of this Court and that it deals with the appeals/representations of the respondent No.4 beyond the one dated 12.1.2010, the learned senior counsel has urged that the respondent No.4 following the withdrawal of the in-charge arrangement in his favour vide the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 had not only abandoned the College, but was also implicated in serious allegation of misappropriation of institutional funds. The tenability of the impugned order dated 6.4.2011 has also been questioned on the ground of non-consideration of the rel­evant records produced on behalf of the Gov­erning Body at the hearing. According to Mr Choudhury, the findings are, thus, perverse. He has further urged that as the Resolution dated 24.8.2010 dealt with by the impugned order is independent of the one dated 29.11.2009, the purported ground of inter­ference therewith (Resolution dated 24.8.20 10) is non-existent. In support of his conten­tions, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Saleha Begum Vs. State of Assam & Ors. 2006 (1) GLT86, Moinul Hoque Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2008 (3)GLT 481; Mubarak Hussain Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2008 (1) GUT615 and W.A. No. 227/2010: Ali Hydar Vs. State of Assam & Ors.. 13. The learned senior Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. State of Assam & Ors. 2006 (1) GLT86, Moinul Hoque Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2008 (3)GLT 481; Mubarak Hussain Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2008 (1) GUT615 and W.A. No. 227/2010: Ali Hydar Vs. State of Assam & Ors.. 13. The learned senior Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. of Assam per contra has urged that as admittedly the Col­lege is in receipt of financial assistance from the Government and is affiliated to the Gauhati University, it is a Non-Government College within the meaning of the Rules which are, thus, applicable to it, Mr Choudhury has sought to draw sustenance to this plea from the determination made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 181/2010: Afzalur Rahman Vs. State of Assam & Ors. Ac­cording to him, as all relevant aspects of the controversy have been duly considered by the concerned departmental authorities in conformity with the directions of this Court, the impugned order dated 6.4.2011 is unassail­able. 14. Mr. Roy Choudhury appearing for the respondent No.4 while endorsing the stand taken on behalf of the official respondents has urged that in view of the decision of this Court bearing on the plea of applicability of the Rules as contained in the order dated 9.11.2010 in WP(C) Nos. 5018/2010 and 5420/2010, the petitioner's cavil on this count is clearly mis­conceived. Affirming that the relevant Pro­ceedings Book had not been produced by the Governing Body and that its Resolution dated 29.11.2009 is clearly without jurisdic­tion for want of quorum, the learned counsel has maintained that the impugned order is valid in all respects and does not warrant any in­terference. 15. The learned counsel for the Govern­ing Body, respondent No.5, however, has denounced the impugned order contending that the same had been passed in utter disre­gard to the relevant records and the Proceed­ings Book laid before the concerned depart­mental authority. According to Mr Choudhury, not only the Governing Body at all relevant times had been a validly constituted one, the meetings were held with the quorum as pre­scribed by Rule-16 of the Rules. As the im­pugned order has been passed on a total non-consideration of these vital factual aspects, it is per se void, he pleaded. Mr Choudhury also laid before this Court the Proceedings Book of the Governing Body containing the minutes of its meetings held during the period 9.1.2010to 30.1.2011. 16. As the im­pugned order has been passed on a total non-consideration of these vital factual aspects, it is per se void, he pleaded. Mr Choudhury also laid before this Court the Proceedings Book of the Governing Body containing the minutes of its meetings held during the period 9.1.2010to 30.1.2011. 16. The pleadings available and the argu­ments advanced have been duly considered. That the College is affiliated to Gauhati Uni­versity and that it is in receipt of financial assistance from the Government since 2007 are matters of records. The assertion made on solemn affirmation that the Governing Body of the College had been constituted by the Director of Higher Education, Assam in terms of the Rules has not been successfully over­turned by the petitioner. Though Mr Roy Choudhury had referred to the order dated 9.11.2010 in WP(C) 5018/2010 and WP(C) 5420/2010 as above in this regard, a perusal thereof reveals that the aspect of applicability of the Rules as such had not been examined therein. The order dated 28.7.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Md. Ali Hydar (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner vis-a-vis this aspect of the lis. The issue therein was whether a venture school in the nature of a private institution receiving financial assist­ance could be construed be a State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction. While an­swering in the negative, their Lordships no­ticed the submission that the school had been recognized by the State Government and was discharging a public function by imparting education. The writ petition filed against the school was held to be not maintainable. 17. In contradistinction, in Afzalur Rahman (supra), the writ appellant had challenged an order passed by the Director of Higher Edu­cation, Assam reconstituting the Governing Body of Jaleshwar College under the provi­sions of the Rules. While rejecting his con­tention that the financial assistance received by the College from the Government was not same as ad-hoc grant so as to make the pro­visions of the Rules applicable thereto, their Lordships sustained the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the nomenclature of the grant would not be decisive and that having regard to the duration of the receipt of such assistance, the same ought to be con­strued as ad-hoc grants from the Government. The provisions of the Rules were held to be applicable thereto. Though the fact that the appellant therein was himself a beneficiary of an order of the Director of Higher Education, Assam being appointed as the President of the Governing Body earlier was also taken note of, the view taken on the applicability of the Rules on the consideration of receipt of financial assistance is apparently not condi­tional thereon. 18. The documents on record further re­veals that by letter No. B(2)H.22/2001/61 dated 25.1.2001 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) De­partment the concurrence of the Government to the permission/affiliation to the College was conveyed. Not only the uninterrupted receipt of financial assistance by the College has also been recorded in the impugned order dated 6.4.2011, the Cabinet Memorandum (Annex-ure-8 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the re­spondent No.4) on the issue, amongst oth­ers, reflects the view of the Finance Depart­ment of the State that the same is in the na­ture of ad-hoc Grants-in-Aid signifying that the institutions therefor were contemplated to be treated as deficit Grants-in-Aid institutions. That the Governing Body of the College was constituted under the Rules is inter alia evi­dent from the letter No. PC/HE/Col.26/2005/144 dated 18.5.2007 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam (Annexure-9 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.4) whereby the institution was required to submit necessary proposal in that regard. The Governing Body of the College in fact was thereafter constituted under the Rules vide order No. G(B)GB dated 31.5.2007 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam with Aftab Uddin Mollah as the President thereof for a period of three years. 19. Whereas Rule 1 (3) makes the provi­sions thereof applicable to Non-Government Colleges of Assam affiliated by any Central or State University of Assam and in receipt of deficit Grants-in-Aid or ad-hoc Grants-in-Aid from the State Government, "Non-Gov­ernment College" has been defined thus: "2.(g) "Non-Government College" means the Colleges for imparting Higher education in the Post-secondary courses, established and situ­ated in Assam, affiliated by any Central or State University of Assam and receiving the concur­rence of the State Government." 20. Rule-3 enjoins that every Non-Gov­ernment College affiliated to any Central or State University of Assam and duly concurred by the State Government shall be governed by a Governing Body to be constituted by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Rule-3 enjoins that every Non-Gov­ernment College affiliated to any Central or State University of Assam and duly concurred by the State Government shall be governed by a Governing Body to be constituted by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. While Rule-6 permits the State Government to take over the control and management of a Non-Government College in the event of mismanagement of its affairs, the Secretary of the Governing Body thereof is made re­sponsible under Rule-8 to report to the Di­rector about any deviation of financial norms and procedures or any loss of assets of the College immediately whenever it comes to his notice. In terms of Rule-14, the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Gov­erning Body have to be recorded in the 'Pro­ceedings Book' by the Secretary and signed by all the members present. Rule-16 pre­scribes the quorum to be of seven members of the Governing Body for its meetings. 21. Having regard to the framework of the Rules as above, the pleadings of the parties and the decision rendered in W.A. No. 181/2010: Afzalur Rahman Vs. State of Assam, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the provisions of the Rules are applicable to the College. 22. Before adverting to the facet of the validity or otherwise of the Resolutions, it would be apt to take note of the amendment to the Rules introduced in 2009. Thereby, with the amendment of Rule-18 appeal against any action of the College concerned was pref­erable before the appropriate authority of the Government. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.4 was within his right under the Rules to prefer appeal also against the Resolutions dated 24.8.10 and 19.11.10 of the Governing Body of the College with the Government. No infirmity with the impugned order dated 6.4.2011 can be ascribed on this count, such avenue being permissible under the Rules as amended. 23. That by the Office Memorandum No. AHE.331/2008/33 dated 9.7.2009 the then existing Governing Bodies of the Colleges within the purview of the Rules had been dis­solved but were permitted to discharge their functions till a new President thereof was ap­pointed or for three months, whichever was earlier is a matter of record and not disputed. 23. That by the Office Memorandum No. AHE.331/2008/33 dated 9.7.2009 the then existing Governing Bodies of the Colleges within the purview of the Rules had been dis­solved but were permitted to discharge their functions till a new President thereof was ap­pointed or for three months, whichever was earlier is a matter of record and not disputed. As noticed hereinabove, at the time of issu­ance of the aforementioned Office Memoran­dum Aftab Uddin Mollah had been the Presi­dent of the Governing Body of the College constituted vide order dated 31.5.2007. By Notification No. AHE.331/2008/37 dated 8.10.2009 of the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Depart­ment (Annexure-12 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.4) while mention­ing that the said period of three months had expired on 9.10.2009, the senior amongst the two nominated members of the affiliated Uni­versities was permitted to act as the interim President of the Governing Body till a regular incumbent was appointed. Subsequent thereto, by Order bearing No.G(B)GB.6/2009/21 dated 6.1.2010 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam a new Governing Body of the College was constituted with Sri Satindra Narayan Das as the President thereof. 24. It is in the above factual backdrop that the validity of the Resolutions dated 29.11.2009, 24.8.2010 and 18.11.2010 of the Governing Body of the College would have to be tested. Significantly, the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 is not a part of the records. Though the letters of the even date of Aftab Uddin Mollah in the capacity of the President of the Governing Body of the College with­drawing the in-Charge Principalship from the respondent No.4 and endowing it to the pe­titioner are available. In view of the fact that on 29.11.2009 the Governing Body headed by Aftab Uddin Mollah as the President thereof was not in existence, the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 on this count alone has to be construed to be non-est. 25. Aplain reading of the Resolutions dated 24.8.20 10 and 18.11.2010, however, dem­onstrates that those had been recorded by the Governing Body re-constituted by the order dated 6.1.2010 referred to hereinabove of the Director of Higher Education, Assam. 25. Aplain reading of the Resolutions dated 24.8.20 10 and 18.11.2010, however, dem­onstrates that those had been recorded by the Governing Body re-constituted by the order dated 6.1.2010 referred to hereinabove of the Director of Higher Education, Assam. In the Resolution dated 24.8.2010 the Gov­erning Body took note inter alia of the FIR lodged against the respondent No.4 corre­sponding to GR Case (Fkj) 67/2010 under Section 406/408/420/468/506 IPC and while expressing concern for his alleged con­duct of insubordinate, indiscipline and unau­thorised absence, it decided to place him un­der suspension pending drawal of departmen­tal proceeding. The in-Charge Principal-cum-Secretary was requested to issue the order of suspension. In the Resolution dated 18.11.2010, the Governing Body recorded his alleged acts of intrusion in the Principal's room, assault on the petitioner and his en­deavours to take forceful charge of the office on 17.9.2010. The Governing Body on a consideration of all aspects relating to the imputed acts of the respondent No.4 resolved to discharge him from service and to take fol­low up action for his termination. Eventually in its meeting held on 18.11.2010, the Gov­erning Body took note of the following charges against the respondent No.4:- i) Lavish expenditure at his whims and caprices and misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 16,42,219/- from the Gov­ernment grants and funds received during the session- 2006-2007,2007-2008 and 2008-2009; ii) Unauthorized absence from duty continuously since 30,11.2009; iii) Neglect, defiance and disregard to the orders and directions of the Govern­ing Body and refusal to hand over charge of the office of the Principal to the peti­tioner; iv) Forceful entry into the office of the Principal of the College with hired goons on 17.9.2010 and assault on the peti­tioner; v) Humiliation of the members of the Governing Body by manhandling some of them; vi) Breaking open the lock of the door of the Principal's room with hired goons and acts of vandalism on 17.9.2010; vii) Misuse of the Principal's writing pad and seal unauthorisedly after removal from the said office; viii) Misleading judiciary, police administration and Government authorities by creating hindrance in the works of the College. 26. The Governing Body in the aforesaid meeting recorded that the respondent No.4 inspite of being required to do so had failed to submit any reply to the show cause notices relating to the aforementioned imputations and unanimously resolved to terminate his serv­ices as the Lecturer of the College. 26. The Governing Body in the aforesaid meeting recorded that the respondent No.4 inspite of being required to do so had failed to submit any reply to the show cause notices relating to the aforementioned imputations and unanimously resolved to terminate his serv­ices as the Lecturer of the College. The or­der of termination dated 19.11.2010 (Annex-ure-27 to the writ petition) was thereafter is­sued by Sri Satindra Narayan Das, the Presi­dent of the Governing Body of the College. That meanwhile on FIRs being lodged against the respondent No.4 on 2.5.2010 and 17.9.2010 GR Case (Fkj) 67/2010 under Section 406/408/420/468/506IPC as well as OR Case (Fkj) 140/2010 under Section 143/147/148/149/452/325/506/294/380 IPC were registered and pending are matters of records and an undeniable fact. 27. The impugned order reveals the fol­lowing salient features: i) The College is governed by the Rules and the Government cannot be a mute spectator vis-a-vis the affairs thereof war­ranting its intervention. ii) The Proceeding Books of the Gov­erning Body containing the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 had not been produced. iii) In view of the Office Memorandum dated 9.7.2009 limiting the term of the existing Governing Bodies, the Resolution dated 29.11.2009 reportedly taken under the Chairmanship of Aftab Uddin Mollah is invalid. iv) The Governing Body of the Col­lege was re-constituted on 6.1.2010 with Sri Satindra Narayan Das as the Presi­dent. v) The records of the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Body held on 24.8.2010 and 19.11.2010 have not been produced for scrutiny. vi) The Governing Body after its re-constitution has been functioning without the elected teachers' representatives, Uni­versity's nominees and donor members. vii) The identity of the incumbent in the office of the Principal of the College is unclear in view of the tussle between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 therefor. viii) The order of termination had been issued by the President of the Governing Body who is not the appointing authority of the respondent No.4. ix) The meetings in which the Resolu­tions dated 29.11.2009, 24.8.2010 and 19.11.2010 (sic.) were taken lacked in the requisite quorum of minimum 7 members. The Resolutions referred to hereinabove were, therefore, invalid. 28. Though the Governing Body of the College has categorically pleaded on solemn affirmation before this Court that the Proceed­ings Book of the meetings and other records had been paced at the appeal, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, respondent No.3 has this assertion. The Resolutions referred to hereinabove were, therefore, invalid. 28. Though the Governing Body of the College has categorically pleaded on solemn affirmation before this Court that the Proceed­ings Book of the meetings and other records had been paced at the appeal, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, respondent No.3 has this assertion. Be that as it may, it is, thus, apparent that the impugned order had been passed without any reference to the said Proceeding Books. 29. As alluded hereinabove, the Proceeding Books of the College containing the Resolu­tions of the Governing adopted in the meet­ings held between 9.1.2011 and 30.1.2011 has been produced in course of the hearing. The Resolution dated 29.11.2009, to reiter­ate, however is not available. The conclusion recorded in the impugned order vis-a-vis the Resolution dated 29.11.2009, therefore, can­not be faulted with. A plain perusal of the Resolutions dated 24.8.2010 and 18.11.2010, however, patently reflect that those had been recorded by the newly con­stituted Governing Body with Sri Satindra Narayan Das as the President thereof. The minutes also testify that the required quorum of seven members prescribed by the Rules did exist. The observation that the Governing Body after its re-constitution is functioning without duly elected Teachers' representa­tives, University's nominees and donor mem­bers seems to be based on a revelation by the President himself, There is, however, no material on record to decisively endorse this remark, Even otherwise, under Rule 12(2) of the Rules any vacancy in the Governing Body per se would not render its proceedings invalid. The records reveal that the respond­ent No.4 had been appointed on the basis of a Resolution of the Governing Body of the College and that the letter of appointment was in the hand of the Secretary thereof. The or­der of termination of his service having been issued in conformity with the Resolution dated 18.11.2010 of the Governing Body of the College, the finding against the validity these of as issued by the President of the Governing Body lacks persuasion. The impugned order does not record any vitiating illegality in the Resolutions dated 24.8.2010 and 18.11.2010 except the inferred lack of quorum. The otherwise preponent materi­als on record bearing on the allegations and charges against the respondent No.4 per se cannot, thus, be denounced and repudiated to be illegal and in defiance of logic in the present form, however, subject to other rem­edies available to him against the same. The otherwise preponent materi­als on record bearing on the allegations and charges against the respondent No.4 per se cannot, thus, be denounced and repudiated to be illegal and in defiance of logic in the present form, however, subject to other rem­edies available to him against the same. 30. In view of the determination as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, thus, interfered with. The respondents would take necessary consequential steps forthwith without fail in accordance with law so as to ensure that the sanctity and solem­nity of the academic atmosphere of the insti­tution is maintained in the best interest of the students in general. 31. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.