JUDGMENT Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the Managing Committee of Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya and its Headmaster. The school is categorized as a "Dearness Allowance (D.A.) getting school", although it has been contended that the State directly gives D.A. to some of the teachers. The writ petition has been filed for placement of a Departmental Nominee and for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school. It is the case of the petitioners that after completion of election, a Departmental Nominee had been placed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.), Kolkata on 15th October, 2015 and the Managing Committee had been reconstituted thereafter on 4th November, 2015. The tenure of the present Managing Committee was to expire therefore on 3rd November, 2018, three years being the tenure of a Managing Committee of a school under the relevant Rules. The election programme was made on 1st April, 2018 and a notice for election of teaching representatives was done on 19th April, 2018, followed by election of teachers and non-teachers'' representatives on 28th April, 2018. The election of the guardians'' representatives was held on 6th May, 2018. 2. Mr. Pratik Dhar, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after completion of all the stages as stated above, the only requirement left was placement of a Departmental Nominee by the District Inspector (D.I.), Kolkata. The Managing committee by its letter dated 8th May, 2018 had accordingly requested for reconstitution of the Managing Committee by placing a Departmental Nominee. The petitioners sent a reminder on 7th August, 2018 followed by an intimation to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (the Board) on 29th August, 2018. Counsel submits that the D.I. sought for a clarification by a communication dated 18th September, 2018 listing three points for clarification, which were- "S/A is requested to clarify the following points in the matter of MC election: 1. Election officer conduct election within the validity of MC/Administrator 2. Any court case pending before Hon''ble Court. 3. Administrator, WBBSE order dated : 25.06.2015 regd. Election officer conduct election within the validity of MC/Administrator 2. Any court case pending before Hon''ble Court. 3. Administrator, WBBSE order dated : 25.06.2015 regd. Appointment." (Phrases reproduced from the impugned communication) The petitioners are aggrieved by this communication for the following reasons; a) the election was done within the period of validity of the Managing Committee b) a "No Litigation Certificate" had been given by the petitioners to the D.I. on 8th May, 2018 c) there is no order of the Board dated 25th June, 2015, contrary to what has been stated in the impugned communication. These points were duly clarified by the petitioners in their letter to the D.I dated 19th September, 2018. 3. Counsel contends that the D.I. despite receiving the reply of the petitioners and being fully aware that the term of the Managing Committee was to expire on 3rd November, 2018, chose not to respond to the petitioners'' letter. The petitioners were hence constrained to file the present writ petition by reason of the inaction on the part of the respondents in placing a Departmental Nominee for the purpose of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school. 4. Counsel urges that the D.I. cannot have any objection to placing a Departmental Nominee in 2018 since the same D.I. had placed a Departmental Nominee on an earlier occasion namely on 15th October, 2015. This would also show that the D.I. cannot have any ground for opposing the request of the petitioners or refusing to take action in respect of the same since an objection could have been taken prior to 15th October, 2015 which was not the case. With regard to the third clarification sought, counsel elaborates that the order of the Board/WBBSE dated 25th June, 2015 with regard to appointment of an Administrator finds place in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State where it has been clearly stated that "the aforesaid order shall not be given effect till such time the Hon''ble High Court grants permission to give effect to the aforesaid order". It is submitted that no permission was given by this Court to give any effect to the order dated 25th June, 2015 and no document to that effect has been shown by the State. Counsel raises the additional point that this order was sought for by one Mr. It is submitted that no permission was given by this Court to give any effect to the order dated 25th June, 2015 and no document to that effect has been shown by the State. Counsel raises the additional point that this order was sought for by one Mr. Rajesh Sinha and was handed over to this person by the Board, which would also be apparent from the particular document in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State. Counsel questions the aforesaid since Rajesh Sinha has no connection with the school save interfering with the internal matters of administration of the School. Counsel places an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th May, 2018 in which the point of unsolicited interference of Rajesh Sinha was noted. Counsel submits that by the said order, the Division Bench also stayed an enquiry into the affairs of the school. It is submitted that taking all these facts into consideration, the D.I. cannot have a justifiable basis for withholding placement of a Departmental Nominee, particularly when all the requisite stages of the election process have been completed by the School and the order of the Board dated 25th June, 2015 clearly states that such order shall not be given effect to until this Court has granted permission. 5. On the locus of the Managing Committee to file the present writ petition, counsel submits that the objection taken by the respondents on this score is no longer available to them in view of a judgment passed by this Court on 9th August, 2019 in W.P. No.24503(W) of 2018 and W.P. No.24504(W) of 2018 where the point of locus has been decided in favour of the present petitioners. It is also submitted that the present writ petition was filed during the period of validity of the Managing Committee that is before 3rd November, 2018 and on the basis of an interim order granted in favour of the Managing Committee which was extended several times thereafter. 6. Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, counsel appearing for the State submits that the Departmental Nominee had been placed on 15th October, 2015 since the election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee had been properly held in compliance with the statutory rules, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Rules, 1969. Counsel questions the locus of the writ petitioners since the tenure of the Managing Committee expired in November, 2018. Counsel questions the locus of the writ petitioners since the tenure of the Managing Committee expired in November, 2018. Counsel relies on a complaint dated 16th May, 2014 from twenty of the approved staff of the School against the activities of the Teacher-in-Charge and the Secretary of the Managing Committee pursuant to which the Administrator of the Board scheduled a hearing on 23rd April, 2015 which was challenged by the Managing Committee in W.P. No.8658(W) of 2015. An order dated 15th May, 2015 was passed in the said writ petition granting liberty to the Administrator of the Board to pass a final order upon hearing the concerned parties but with a constraint that no effect should be given to such order without obtaining leave from the Court. A final order was passed by the Board on 25th June, 2015 appointing an Administrator to the School for the reasons cited in the said order. The Assistant Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Kolkata was appointed as the Administrator of the School. It is the case of the State respondents that the Managing Committee of the school was reconstituted after the order dated 28th June, 2015 although no extension was granted by the Board and the appointment of the Administrator was also withdrawn. Counsel relies on an order of a learned Single Judge dated 23rd December, 2015 recording that a challenge to the appointment of the Administrator was withdrawn and counsel contends that since the appointment of the Administrator has not been set aside, the petitioners would have to abide by the same. Counsel submits that the school authorities are not paying the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff since June 2017 as would appear from the complaints of the teachers. The D.A. of the School was also stopped in September 2018 and has been released up to October, 2018. It is also submitted that the Board did not grant any approval to the School for reconstitution of the Managing Committee from 28th September, 2015 to 3rd November, 2018. Counsel points to the gap of seven days given by the petitioners between the date and time of the publication of the provisional voter list and the holding of election which is contrary to Regulation 7 of the Management Rules which provides for a clear gap of one month and ten days. Counsel points to the gap of seven days given by the petitioners between the date and time of the publication of the provisional voter list and the holding of election which is contrary to Regulation 7 of the Management Rules which provides for a clear gap of one month and ten days. It is also submitted that the date of the election of the Managing Committee for the purpose of reconstitution is required to be fixed at least 60 days prior to expiry of the term of the existing Managing Committee whereas in the present case the date for election for the reconstitution of the Managing Committee was fixed seven days before the expiry of the term. Counsel submits that the power to decide a dispute relating to the legality of reconstitution of the Managing Committee is pending with the Board and the Board should therefore decide the dispute which has been brought before this Court. 7. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener/private respondent submits that the election for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner no.2 was conducted by the petitioner no.1 (the Headmaster) to cover up the misdeeds of the Headmaster. Counsel challenges the election on the ground that there was no election of the teachers'' representative and guardians'' representative and further that the electoral rolls were published on the Notice Board of the School. Counsel relies on the letter written by the private respondent to the School in this respect on 9th July, 2018. Counsel submits that the election programme as published by the Headmaster is contrary to the Management Rules. The private respondent''s complaint of 9th August, 2018 to the Board for being disqualified from participating in the election is pending consideration. Counsel submits that even a suspended teacher or a non-teaching employee is eligible to vote and seek election to the Managing Committee and places reliance on Memo No.7342/G dated September 29, 1981 and 5426/G dated July 21, 1977 in this regard. Counsel reiterates the objection taken by the State to the gap of seven days as being contrary to Rule 17 and Form 1 (M.C.) of the Management Rules. Counsel submits that even otherwise, the Board should dispose of the pending dispute raised by the private respondent before placing of a Departmental Nominee in the School. 8. Counsel reiterates the objection taken by the State to the gap of seven days as being contrary to Rule 17 and Form 1 (M.C.) of the Management Rules. Counsel submits that even otherwise, the Board should dispose of the pending dispute raised by the private respondent before placing of a Departmental Nominee in the School. 8. The dispute in the present proceeding relates to the impugned communication of the D.I. dated 18th September, 2018 in which the petitioners were asked to clarify three points which have been enumerated above. The petitioners are admittedly aggrieved by the third point which refers to an order passed by the Board on 25th June, 2015. Point nos. 1 and 2 do not seem to be relevant since the election was done within the validity period of the Managing Committee and a "No Litigation Certificate" was given by the school to the D.I. on 8th May, 2018. The dispute in essence is that the petitioners seek reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school by placement of a Departmental Nominee while the State respondents point to the existing Administrator whose appointment must first be invalidated before the Managing Committee can be reconstituted. The private respondent and the State both question the election process undertaken by the petitioners for reconstitution of the Managing Committee as being in violation of the Management of Recognized Institution (Aided & Unaided) Rules, 1969. 9. On perusing the order of the Board dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the Administrator of the Board, it is evident that despite the reasons recorded in the said order for appointing an Administrator in the school, it has clearly been stated that the aforesaid order shall not be given effect to till such time the Court grants permission for the same. Admittedly, none of the respondents have shown any order passed by this court granting permission for giving effect to the said order. Significantly, this order was passed before the placement of a Departmental Nominee on 15th October, 2015 by the D.I. in the concerned school. The line extracted above makes it clear that the order does not have any legal sanctity and could not have been relied upon by any of the respondents for the actions complained of in the present proceeding and moreover, that the Managing Committee of the school was reconstituted thereafter on 4th November, 2015. The line extracted above makes it clear that the order does not have any legal sanctity and could not have been relied upon by any of the respondents for the actions complained of in the present proceeding and moreover, that the Managing Committee of the school was reconstituted thereafter on 4th November, 2015. The third point raised by the State respondents in the impugned communication is therefore irrelevant and cannot be taken as a ground to object to a Departmental Nominee being placed in the School. With regard to the issues urged on behalf of the private respondent with the holding of the elections being contrary to the relevant Rules, the date of the notice for holding elections in the teachers and non-teachers'' representative is 19th April, 2018 and the date of holding election declared by such notice is 28th April, 2018. The seven clear days provided is in accordance with Clause 29(b) of the Management Rules which requires that election of teachers'' representatives and non-teaching staff "...........on a date fixed by him/her with clear 7 (seven) days notice to all eligible teachers and non-teaching staff of the school.......". In this case, notice was issued on 19th April, 2018 and the election was held on 28th April, 2018. The date of the election of the teaching and non-teaching Staff of the School was 28th April, 2018 and that of the guardians'' category was 6th May, 2018. This shows compliance of Rule 9(2) of the Management Rules which requires that the date of election should at least be 60 days before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee. 10. This court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that the private respondent is a suspended teacher and did not take any steps for participating in the elections which were held on 28th April, 2018 and made a representation only on 9th August, 2018, after more than three months from the holding of the election. Notably, the private respondent had filed a writ petition being W.P. No.3072(W) of 2018 which included a prayer for appointment of Administrator in the school. In the said writ petition, an order was passed by a learned Single Judge on 2nd July, 2018 permitting subsistence allowance to the private respondent subject to a proper declaration being submitted but rejecting the prayer for appointment of Administrator. In the said writ petition, an order was passed by a learned Single Judge on 2nd July, 2018 permitting subsistence allowance to the private respondent subject to a proper declaration being submitted but rejecting the prayer for appointment of Administrator. The reason for refusal of the prayer for Administrator appears to be the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 15th May, 2018 staying a proposed inspection of the School which had been directed by the Deputy Director of School Education. Therefore, a prayer for appointment of Administrator and other reliefs prayed for by the private respondent which was refused earlier on 2nd July, 2018 in W.P. No.3027(W) cannot be agitated again in this proceeding unless the private respondent is able to show that the order dated 2nd July, 2018 has subsequently been vacated or set aside. Permitting the private respondent to agitate the same reliefs in this writ petition in the form of an intervention application would result in inconsistent judicial orders. Even otherwise, the private respondent, being a part of the teaching staff of the school cannot have any ground for objecting to a Departmental Nominee being placed for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School. 11. With regard to the locus of the Managing Committee to file the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that this point has been decided in W.P. No.24503(W) of 2018 by the Judgment dated 9th August, 2019. The challenge in the said writ petition filed by the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the School was directed against an order passed by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by which a suspension order passed by the Managing Committee against a teacher was set aside and the said teacher was permitted to join the school. The court relied on an order passed by a learned Judge in November 2018 in W.P. No.21986(W) of 2018 where an order of status quo was granted in respect of the tenure of the Managing Committee. This order was extended by subsequent orders and was not challenged by any of the parties before the court. The court relied on an order passed by a learned Judge in November 2018 in W.P. No.21986(W) of 2018 where an order of status quo was granted in respect of the tenure of the Managing Committee. This order was extended by subsequent orders and was not challenged by any of the parties before the court. The contention that the Managing Committee was a defunct entity at the time of filing of the said writ petition was accordingly rejected and it was further held that the Appeal Committee did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as on the date on which such order was passed. Moreover, the present writ petition was filed prior to the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee. The term of the Managing Committee expired on 3rd November, 2018 and the writ petition was filed on 12th October, 2018. 12. By reason of the factual circumstances as stated above, the objection taken by the State and the private respondent to the prayer for placing a Departmental Nominee for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School is found to be without any basis. The Departmental Nominee had been placed by the D.I. on 15th October, 2015 and the Managing Committee had been reconstituted on 4th November, 2015 which was duly intimated to the Board and the District Inspector of Schools by way of the relevant form under the relevant Memo. The term of the Managing Committee expired on 3rd November, 2018, three years being the tenure under Rule 12 of the Management Rules. The three clarifications sought for from the school by the communication dated 18th September, 2018 have all been proved to be irrelevant and hence cannot be treated as a valid ground for withholding the placement of a Departmental Nominee for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School. The State respondents cannot rely on the order dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the Board since such order has not been given effect to till date and was in any event passed before the Departmental Nominee was placed by the D.I. on the earlier occasion, namely, 15th October, 2015. The State respondents cannot rely on the order dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the Board since such order has not been given effect to till date and was in any event passed before the Departmental Nominee was placed by the D.I. on the earlier occasion, namely, 15th October, 2015. Since all the formalities for holding election of the Managing Committee of the school have been completed and the elections have been held in April 2018, the State respondents cannot be permitted to delay the placement of a Departmental Nominee for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school any further. 13. W.P. No.21986(W) of 2018 is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (b). The State respondents are directed to place a Departmental Nominee for the purpose of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the concerned school within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. W.P.21986(W) of 2018 is disposed of on the basis of the above direction. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.