Managing Committee O... v. State Of Bihar And O...

1. The petitioner, namely, the Managing Committee of Shree Ganesh Adarsh Sanskrit High School, Bakhtiarpur, has filed this writ application challenging the vires and the correctness of the order of respondent No. 3, the Assistant Director of Education (Sanskrit), dated 12-9-1980, contained in his letter, a copy of which is Annexure 3. Under that letter respondent No. 3 intimated the Vice-President of the Managing Committee of the School in question that Dr. Parmanand, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the writ application, would continue as the Secretary of the Managing Committee until a decision was taken by the State Government regarding the re-constitution of the Managing Committee.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No. 4 offered to resign from the office of the Secretary of the Managing Committee by his letter dated 9-7-80 (Annexure 2) addressed to the Secretary as well as the Headmaster of the School. He stated in the letter of resignation that he was resigning of his own free-will and the resignation may be accepted by convening an early meeting of the Managing Committee. A copy of this letter was also forwarded by him to respondent No. 3. Undisputedly, a meeting of the Managing Committee was convened on 11-8-1980 and the letter of resignation of respondent No. 4 was accepted. The Vice-President of the Managing Committee sent a communication of the above resolution of the Managing Committee to respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 18-8-1980 and it is in reply to this communication that respondent No. 3 has informed the Vice-President under the impugned annexure that respondent No. 4 would continue as the Secretary of the Committee, as already said earlier.

It has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in support of the impugned order that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 11-8-1980, did not consider the letter of withdrawal of his resignation issued by respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the resolution adopted at this meeting was illegal.

3. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that once the letter of resignation was tendered by respondent No. 4, he had no right to withdraw the same and in any view of the matter, when once it was accepted rightly or wrongly, then respondent No. 3 had no right to issue any direction in the matter.

4. Along with the counter-affidavit a copy of the letter of withdrawal of the resignation by respondent No. 4, dated 9-8-1980, has been filed as Annexure A. In the rejoinder which was filed during the course of the hearing on behalf of the petitioner a stand was taken that Annex. A itself was manipulated and was never received by the addressee, namely, the Vice-President, before the meeting which was held on the 11th of August, 1980. Nothing positive has been shown to me in this regard but I was asked to take this view on the ground that had it been a fact then certainly respondent No. 4 who, notwithstanding his resignation, continued to be a member of the Managing Committee and the notice of the meeting having also been served on him, was expected to attend the same and object to the acceptance of the resignation on the ground that it had already been withdrawn. It is not possible to come to this conclusion on this argument which is partly based on conjectures. Learned counsel for the parties also argued at some length as to whether respondent No. 4 had got any right to withdraw the letter of resignation and, if so, what would be its consequences. Some authorities were also cited.

On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the case of Sukhdeo Narayan v. Municipal Commissioner of Arrah (AIR 1956 Pat 367), which was a case under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act where a Chairman of a Municipality who had resigned, had subsequently unequivocally withdrawn the same before the resignation was considered at a meeting. In view of the various provisions contained in S. 33(4) of the Municipal Act it was held by this Court that after resignation the only matter that the law required was that it should be accepted by the Commissioners under sub-section (4) of S. 33 and that the withdrawal of the resignation had no effect in law. This authority is obviously based on the provisions contained under the Municipal Act and is, therefore, not on the point as un-disputedly in this case, there is no provision to govern the resignation of any member of the Committee or the mode of its acceptance or the like.

Reference may, however, be usefully made to the case of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (AIR 1978 SC 694) where in para 51 it was observed “that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective’ resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operated to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resigner. This general rule was held to be equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries and it was very categorically observed that “in the case of a Government servant or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority.”

5. It is apparent from the facts of the instant case, as already stated earlier, that there is a complete absence of any legal or contractual provision operating the consideration of letter of resignation or its subsequent withdrawal. It is also apparent from the letter of resignation itself that respondent No. 4 intended his resignation to make it prospective in the sense that he wanted it to be accepted by the Committee and, therefore, it was not intended to become effective on the date of tendering the letter of resignation, i.e, 9th of July, 1980. I am, therefore, inclined to take the view that it could be withdrawn by respondent No. 4 before it became effective.

As to when the acceptance of the resignation could become effective, I may refer to Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act which provides that a proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, and as provided under Section 4, the communication of the acceptance of the proposal is complete as against the proposer when it is put in course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. This fact is also clear from the illustration to S. 5. I, therefore, feel inclined to take the view that respondent No. 4 was competent to revoke his letter of resignation before its acceptance was complete in the sense, as against him, and certainly it was not so until 11-8-1980, when he had already withdrawn his letter of resignation by the letter (Annex. A), I would accordingly hold that the resolution of the Managing Committee accepting the resignation of respondent No. 4 in its meeting held on 11-8-1980, was invalid.

6. Mr. Mishra has also raised a point that either under the Education Code or the Bihar Rajya Arajakiya Sanskrit Vidyalay Prabandha Samiti Rules 1978, respondent No. 3 had no authority to issue any direction as contained under Annx. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents could not point out any provision under which it could be said that respondent No. 3 had any authority or any manner of control over the affairs of the Managing Committee and could examine the validity or otherwise of any action of the Managing Committee. However, I find from Annex. 3 itself as well as from Cl. (cha) of R. 4 of the aforesaid Rules that the old Managing Committees were to function only until a new Managing Committee or an Ad hoc Committee was not constituted for any school. The role also fixed a time limit of six months by which the life of the old Managing Committee could be extended after coming into force of the Rules, apparently with an intention that within the period of six months the State machinery would be in a position to get the new Managing Committee or Ad hoc Committee established in the schools. No action has been taken in this regard, and as I am informed, no Committee has been established. In any of the schools which are governed by these rules. It would, therefore, be a high time for the respondent authorities to rise from their slumber and act under the mandate that was given by the Rules in regard to the establishment of new Managing Committees. In order to see that the respondents do act, I will fix a period of three months from today for constituting a regular Managing Committee in the school in question. I accordingly direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to see that the Managing Committee or at least an Ad hoc Managing Committee is constituted within the aforesaid period of three months for the school in question.

7. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application and would accordingly dismiss the same, subject, however, to the direction given above, but without any order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.