JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. 1. Let affidavit-of-service be kept on record. 2. This writ application is filed by the Managing Committee, Multi Peary Sreemanta Institution (H.S.), District-South 24-Parganas and its Secretary assailing an order passed by the respondent no. 3 under his Memo No. 503/1(5) LS dated July 4, 2013. The above order was passed in compliance of an order dated October 18, 2012 in the matter of Smt. Champakali Bag @ Kamar v. The State of West Bengal & Others (In Re: W.P. No. 16064 (W) of 2012). By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner No. 1? Managing Committee was directed to allow the respondent no. 5 to discharge the function of teacher-in-charge of the school under reference till appointment of the Headmaster after relinquishing the responsibility of the above post by one Sri Kalipada Ghosh (an Assistant Teacher of the above school). The District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24-Parganas was directed to ensure compliance of the above order and to send a report and in default on the part of the petitioner No. 1-Managing Committee to send a report to him. 3. The fact of this case in a nutshell is recorded below: The Headmaster of the school under reference retired from the post with effect from July 30, 2012 on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation. By a resolution dated June 15, 2012 adopted in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the above school one Sri Kalipada Ghosh, an Assistant Teacher of the school, was directed to discharge the function of teacher-in-charge of the above school. 4. The respondent no. 5 was working for gain in the post of Assistant Headmistress in the above school at the material point of time. She filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Champakali Bag v. The State of West Bengal & Others (In Re: W.P. No. 16064 (W) of 2012) assailing the above resolution of the petitioner No. 1? Managing Committee. The above writ application was disposed of on October 18, 2012 by directing the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the representation of the respondent no. 5 filed with regard to the above dispute. In compliance of the above order, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order. 5. Managing Committee. The above writ application was disposed of on October 18, 2012 by directing the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the representation of the respondent no. 5 filed with regard to the above dispute. In compliance of the above order, the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order. 5. According to the petitioners, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law for violation of the rules of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, the above matter was taken up for hearing by the respondent no. 3 on February 7, 2013. A prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners to adjourn the hearing of the matter. But the impugned order was passed rejecting the above prayer. According to the petitioners, the cause of appointing somebody other than the respondent no. 5 to discharge the responsibility of the post of teacher-in-charge was frequent absence of the respondent no. 5 from duties. According to her, the above ground was not taken into consideration by the respondent no. 3. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 that the respondent no. 3 took up the matter for hearing in compliance of the order dated October 18, 2012 passed in W.P. No. 16064 (W) of 2012. The respondent no. 3 was under obligation to dispose of the matter within a time frame. As a result, the prayer of the petitioners for adjournment of the hearing of the matter was adjourned. 7. I have heard the leaned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Admittedly, the respondent no. 5 has been discharging the function of the Assistant Headmistress of the school under reference. It is also not in dispute that while the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order he relied upon the decision of Kanal Pal v. State of West Bengal & Others (In Re: W.P. No. 1466 of 2001). The respondent no. Admittedly, the respondent no. 5 has been discharging the function of the Assistant Headmistress of the school under reference. It is also not in dispute that while the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order he relied upon the decision of Kanal Pal v. State of West Bengal & Others (In Re: W.P. No. 1466 of 2001). The respondent no. 3 further took into consideration the judgment delivered in the matter of Srikumar Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Others (In Re: W.P. No. 5306 (W) of 2010) repeating and reiterating the ratio laid down in the former judgment that when the Assistant Headmaster or Headmistress is available in Non-Government Aided Educational Institution entrusting the responsibility of discharging the function of teacher-in-charge cannot be assigned to any other assistant teacher. 9. It is the settled principles of law that the principles of natural justice is not an unruly horse assuming that the violation of principles of natural justice, the Court must examine the effect of the violation of such rules of natural justice. Reference may be made to the decision of Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee reported in AIR 1977 SC 965 and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below: "Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the fact and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be financial nor financial but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No ma shall be hit below the belt - that is the conscience of the matter." 10. While examining the allegation of the petitioners in this writ application, I find that the respondent no. 3 decided the issue on the basis of the settled principles of law as incorporated in the impugned order. 11. So far as the ground for entrusting the responsibility of the teacher-in-charge of the above school to a person other than the respondent no. 3 decided the issue on the basis of the settled principles of law as incorporated in the impugned order. 11. So far as the ground for entrusting the responsibility of the teacher-in-charge of the above school to a person other than the respondent no. 5 is concerned, I find from the statements made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this writ application that frequent absence from service of the respondent no. 5 was the cause for appointing another assistant teacher to discharge the function of teacher-in-charge. I find that the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 5 which was based on his legal right. The petitioners are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for rejecting his above claim. 12. In view of the above, I find that no prejudice was caused for the petitioner for violation of the alleged rules of principles of natural justice. 13. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed. 14. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities. Writ petition is dismissed.