Judgment This Mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court on 30th June, 2014 in W.P. No. 6872(W) of 2014 at the instance of the appellant who was the respondent No. 8 in the writ petition. By the said order, direction was given for holding election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school. Detailed modalities as to how such Managing Committee of the school will be reconstituted have been provided in the said order. The teacher-in-charge of the said school who was the respondent No.8 in the said writ petition, felt aggrieved as the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section were allowed to participate in the election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school. A question has come up for consideration before us as to whether the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school are eligible to participate in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee. Let us now test the legality of the impugned order with reference to the aforesaid question of law, which is raised before us in this appeal. It is an admitted position that the school viz. Calcutta Airport English High School (H.S.) is an unaided English Medium Higher Secondary School recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. The school has its primary section which does not require any recognition either from the Government or from any other statutory authority. Fact remains that there is only one Managing Committee which manages the affairs of the said school including the primary section. The school has a common Bank Account. Earlier a dispute cropped up as to whether the guardians of the students of the primary section can be allowed to participate in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said issue was resolved by the judgment and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 22nd September, 1989 in C.O. No. 7567(W) of 1987 wherein the right of the guardians of the students of the primary section of the said school to participate in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school and to have their representative elected in the reconstituted body, were recognised by this Court. The present issue as to whether the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school can be allowed to participate in the election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school was not an issue in the said writ petition and as such, the order passed in the said writ petition was silent in this regard. However, right of their participation in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school has been recognised by the Learned Single Judge of this court in the impugned order, which is under challenge before us. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since the school is an unaided institution, the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rule) has no application in the present case. In support of such submission, he has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002)8 SCC 481 wherein an issue of identical nature was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that a private institution will have the right to constitute its own governing body, for which qualifications may be prescribed by the State or the University concerned. It was further held therein that it will, however, be objectionable if the State retains the power to nominate specific individuals in governing bodies. It was also held therein that nomination by the State which could be on a political basis, will be an inhibiting factor for private enterprises to embark upon the occupation of establishing and administering educational institutions. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the order impugned cannot be retained on record. Mr. Chatterjee, Learned advocate appearing for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school contends that the Management Rules of 1969 is applied not only to the Recognised Non-Government Aided Institution but also to the Recognised Non-Government Unaided Institution. He submits that the short title of the said Act itself indicates that the Management Rules of 1969 is applicable to Recognised Non-Government Aided as well as Unaided Institution. As such, the Learned Trial Judge, according to Mr. He submits that the short title of the said Act itself indicates that the Management Rules of 1969 is applicable to Recognised Non-Government Aided as well as Unaided Institution. As such, the Learned Trial Judge, according to Mr. Chatterjee, did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order and thereby permitting the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school to participate in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school. He thus, supported the impugned order. Let us now consider the submission of the Learned Counsel of the respective parties in the present context. The Management Rules of 1969, no doubt is applicable not only to the Recognised Non-Government Aided Institution but also is applicable to the Recognised Non-Government Unaided Institution. As such, apparently we cannot disagree with the submission of Mr. Chatterjee that the Management Rules of 1969 is applicable to the Unaided Institution but we cannot put an end to our enquiry here as the Institution in respect of which the Management Rules of 1969 is applicable is mentioned in Rule 2 Sub-Rule (b) wherein “Institution” has been referred to as an Institution as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act and recognized under the Act or within the meaning of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1950. Let us now examine the definition of “Institution” as defined in Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 to find out as to whether the Management Rules of 1969 applies to the petitioner’s Institution or in other words, to find out as to whether the primary section of the said Institution can be regarded as in institution as per Section 2(c) of the said Act. Section 2 Sub-Section (c) of the said Act says that “Institution” means a Secondary School or an educational institution or part or department of such school or institution imparting instruction in Secondary Education. Section 2 (d) of the said Act says that the ‘Managing Committee’ used in reference to an institution includes the Governor or the Governing body of such an Institution. Primary Education has been defined in Section 2(h) of the said Act which says that ‘Primary Education’ means education imparted in a primary school as defined in any Bengal Act or West Bengal Act or education equivalent thereto. Primary Education has been defined in Section 2(h) of the said Act which says that ‘Primary Education’ means education imparted in a primary school as defined in any Bengal Act or West Bengal Act or education equivalent thereto. Secondary Education has been defined in Section 2(l) of the said Act which says that “Secondary Education” means general education above the primary education stage provided for students with a view to qualifying them for admission to a certificate, diploma or degree course instituted by a University or by Government or by a Statutory Body and includes, subject to any general or special order of the State Government— (i) technical education, (ii) agricultural education, (iii) commercial education, (iv) education for the Physically handicapped, (v) education for the mentally retarded and defectives, (vi) education in Reformatory schools and jails, or (vii) any other type of education which the State Government may, in consultation with the Board, specify. Thus, if the Act of 1963 is considered with reference to the Management Rules and in the light of the definition of “Institution” under Section 2(c) of the said Act, then we have no hesitation to hold that the Management Rules which were framed in 1969, is applicable only to the Recognised Non-Government Aided and Unaided Institutions which are Institutions within meaning of an Institution as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act. Section 2(c) of the said Act clearly demonstrates that the Secondary or the Higher Secondary Section of the said school is governed by the said Act and the Management Rules framed thereunder. Such Act distinguishes the primary education from the secondary education as we find from the definition clauses as referred to above and by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Rules of 1969 can be applied to the said school, so far as its primary section is concerned. The primary section of the said school even if it is managed by one common Managing Committee, but still then the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school cannot participate in the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school by virtue of the Management Rules which is inapplicable to the primary section of the said school. in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (Supra) the primary section of the said school which does neither require any recognition from any statutory authority nor is controlled by any statutory rules, can be managed by the owner of the primary section of the school without any interference from any statutory authority, if does not receive any government fund for making it operational. Thus, we cannot agree with the conclusion, which was drawn by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. Though we have reservations with regard to the right of the guardians of the students of the primary section of the said school to participate in the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of such school in view of the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but still then we refrain ourselves from discussing the said issue herein as the said issue was resolved earlier by the judgment passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in the earlier writ petition, which attained its finality. The impugned order is thus, modified only to this extent that reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school will be completed as per the guidelines framed by the Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order without any participation of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the primary section of the said school in the process of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school. The appeal stands allowed with the above modification. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the stay application which is deemed to be disposed of.