L. Rath, J.
1. The question raised in these writ petitions, is that whether Section 7 of the Orissa Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') after its amendment by Act 16 of 1991, and the provisions of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Rules') do not affect the reconstitution of the existing Managing Committees of High Schools existing at the commencement of those rules in accordance with the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as '1980 Rules') and that whether the right of those Managing Committees either to continue in office or to send nominations for their reconstitution is saved by Rule 34 of the 1991 Rules which provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the 1980 Rules any order made, action taken or things done under the provisions of the rules repeated shall be deemed to have been made, taken or done under the new Rules. As a corollary, it is contended that new managing committees are to be retonsituted on the nomination submitted by the outgoing managing committees and that those committees cannot be constituted of the persons as provided for under Rule 18 of the 1991 Rules. On such premises, mandamus is sought for to quash annexures-3 and 4 of OJC No. 963/92, the first being a letter from the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack I Circle of 6-1-92 to the Sub-Collector of Sadar, Cuttack, Athagarh and Banki requesting them to pass orders nominating either the Tahasildars or the Additional Tahasildars to be the ex-officio member as well as the President of the Managing Committees of aided High Schools of each Tahasil, and the second being a letter from the Tahasildar. Banki on 9-1-92 to the Headmaster, Talabasta High School, Tala-basta whose managing committee is the petitioner in the case, directing him to meet him in connection with Annexure-3 with relevant informations about the existing managing Committee of the institution and the name of the highest donor of the school.
In O.J.C. No. 1195/92 where the outgoing managing committee had already nominated on 20-5-91 new members for the purpose of reconstitution, the claim is that the Inspector having not refused the approval of the nominated members, they would be deemed to have assumed office on 1-12-91 and mandamus is sought for to quash Annexures-2 and 3 (presumably mistake for Annexures-3 and 5). Annexure-3 is a communication from the Deputy Secretary to Government on 30-12-91 to the Directors of Higher Education, Secondary Education and Elementary Education of Orissa bringing to their notice the amendment to the Orissa Education Act in 1991 and the framing of the new rules and urging that steps be taken on top priority basis be reconstitute the managing commit-tees in accordance with the new Rules. Annexures 4 and 5 are the identical letters as Annexures 3 and 4 in OJC No. 963/92 with the difference that Annexure-5 is addressed by the same Tahasildar to the Headmaster of Uttarkulat Bidyapitha Bendalo whose managing committee is the petitioner in the case.
In O.J.C. 1599/92, the facts are similar to O.J.C. No. 1195/92 with the averments that the managing committee as nominated by the outgoing managing committee assumed office on 18-12-91 in absence of any response from the Inspector of Schools to the nominations and seeking quashing of Annexures 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7; Annexure-2 being the idential letters Annexure-3 in OJC No. 1195 of 1992; Annexure-3 being the same letter as Annexure-3 to OJC No. 963/91; Annexure-4 being a letter dated 4-2-92 from the Govt. addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa and others regarding implementation of the rules relating to establishment, recognition and management of the aided educational institutions; Annexure-6 being an office order of the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack I Circle purporting to approve the managing committee of Samarapur Gram Panchayat Ucha Bidyalaya on 17-1-92 which order leaves the names of the Tahasildar, the Headmaster, the nominee of the M.L.A. and the nominee of the Panchayat Samiti/NAC/ Municipality block; and Annexure-7 being a notice of 3-4-92; after the Secretary of thenewly constituted managing committee regarding meeting of that committee.
2. The Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Act 16 of 1991) referred hereinafter as 'the 1991 Amendment Act' 'amended Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act reducing the term of the managing committees to three years from five years and introduced Sub-section (5). The provision of Sub-section (5), as analysed, made the following provisions:
(1)The existing managing committees or the governing bodies, as the case may be, of aided or recognised educational institutions constituted prior to the dates of commencement of the 1991 amendment Act including those which were under supersession on that date shall be reconstituted.
(2) Such reconstitution shall be in accordance with the rules that may be made under the Act as amended by Orissa Act 15 of 1989.
(3) The reconstitution is to be made within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the rules so framed, and
(4) that the existing managing committee or the governing bodies shall deem to continue in office on and from the date on which it is so reconstituted.
Admittedly the 1991 Rules framed under Orissa Act 15 of 1989 concerned on 18-12-91 and the period of one year therefrom expired on 17-12-92. Hence, under Section 7(5) of the Act, the reconstitution of the managing committees in accordance with the new rules was to be made by 17-12-92 Notwithstanding such requirement of the Act, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that as Rule 34 of the 1991 Rules while repealing the 1990 Rules till provided that :
'Notwithstanding such repeal, any order made, action taken or things done under the provisions of the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been made, taken or done under these Rules.'
the action taken by the existing managing committee constituting members of new managing committees to be reconstituted must be deemed to have been done under theprovisions of the 1991 Rules and such action being so saved, must separate with full effect. In other words, the managing committees are not to be reconstituted in accordance with Rule 28 of the 1991 Rules, but must be reconstituted under the provisions of the 1980 Rules and it is only on the expiry of the term of the managing committees so reconstituted that the managing committees are to be reconstituted in accordance with the 1991 Rules. Besides, it is also the contention that Rule 28 of the 1991 Rules does not apply to existing aided High Schools but only to schools which would become aided after the commencement of the Rules as it is only provided for reconstitution of managing committees when the School 'becomes an aided one'.
To consider the submissions, an analysis of the provisions of the 1991 Rules on the questions involved is necessary. At one point of time, during the arguments, Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioners, tried to contend of Rule 27 of the 1991 rules being the provision for reconstitution of the managing committee of existing aided high schools whereas Rule 28 as the rule applicable to high schools which are to become aided after the commencement of the Rules. On a closer study, the submission becomes untenable, the 1991 Rules make provisions in Rules 25, 26, 27 and 28 regarding constitution and reconstitution of the managing committees. Rule 25 deals with first constitution of the managing committees after a High School is established in accordance with the rules and requires the managing committee to consist of nine members of which seven are to be nominated by the educational agency or institution in whose favour approval has been granted to start the school. Besides, the Headmaster and a Teachers' representative are to be members, then totalling 9. At such stage obviously the school has not become aided and is exclusively a private educational institution as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. The staff to constitute the managing committee of such school under Rule 25 is vested in the educational agency/institution. Educational Agency has been defined in the rules and the word 'institution' has been used obviously in thesame sense. Rule 27 deals with reconstitution of such managing committees to (sic) distinguished from its first constitution. It provides that not less than ninety days prior to the date of expiry of the term of managing committee and subject to the provisions of Rule 28 (sic). The managing committee is to pass a resolution nominating members in accordance with Rule 25 from among themselves or other persons in the local area interested in the field of education, to be the members of the managing committee. The third proviso says that if the managing committee does not pass the resolution nominating seven members in accordance with Rule 25(2) for its reconstitution, the Director shall be competent to reconstitute the managing committee in accordance with these rules. Rule 27 to a plain reading obviously relates only to private schools which have not become aided. Rules 25, 26 and 27 constitute one group where liberty is given to the agency or the institution in whose favour permission or approval has been granted to nominate seven members. Power of several (sic) of the body is vested in the Director and the procedure of making re-constitution is provided for in Rule 27 with built-in provision as to how the matter is to be dealt with in the event nomination of seven members is not made. That rule, for such reason, has no role to play regarding re-constitution of aided educational institution. Rule 27 itself cut the exception and makes itself subordinate to Rule 28 which is an independent rule starting with the non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in these rules' thus, clearly excepting but (sic) the other rules in Chapter V of the 1991 rules and providing for reconstitution of the managing committees of High Schools as soon as they become aided.
3. Obviously distinction has been made between purely private high schools and private high schools which become aided providing that on their becoming aided the managing committees are to be reconstituted only in accordance with Rule 28. It would be seen that under Rule 28 there is no school of any nomination by any managing committee for the purpose of reconstitution. The Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar, nominated by the Sub-Collector becomes the ex-officioPresident. An exception is provided that in case of a private High School established by a trust, Government has to appoint a nominee of the trust as the President of the managing committee. A question raised that the rule contemplates not the Tahasildars/Additional Tahasildar but the Sub-Collector to be President shall be discussed later. The two seniormost trained graduate teachers of the school are members by virtue of their seniority. The District Inspector of Schools is a member in ex-officio capacity. The local N.L. A. of the constituency and the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti or the Municipality/ MAC are to nominate a person each to be the members of the managing committee and the persons so nominated are to enjoy office during the pleasure of the nominator. The President of the managing committee, i.e. the Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar is to nominate four persons of the locality interacted in the field of education of which one may be the highest donor if the donation exceeds Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and out of the others, one is to be a person of the SC/ST community and the other a woman. The Headmaster of the school or the teacher-in-charge of Headmaster shall be the Secretary of the school in ex-officio capacity. The managing committee so constituted is to obtain approval of the Inspector who has also the authority to suggest changes within thirty days but if no communication is received from him within thirty days, the managing committee shall be deemed to have been approved. There is a further provision that the changes suggested by the Inspector are to be considered by the President and he shall submit the list within fifteen days of receipt of the communication from the Inspector either accepting the changes suggested or refusing them. After re-submission of the list, the Inspector is bound to approve it. The ex-officio Secretary of the managing committee is the person to give intimation to the Inspector regarding constitution of the managing committee or of any change of its membership. Rule 28 being thus a complete rule regarding schools which become aided and it being in a completely different part, the provisions of Rule 27 cannot have any application there.
4. It is necessary at this stage to examine the submission of Mr. Mallik that Rule 28, at any rate, is only a tule which applies to reconstitution of a managing committee as soon as a high school becomes an aided one, which according to him can only mean that the reconstitution is to be made in accordance with the rule only if a school becomes aided after the commencement of the 1991 rules. The submission on the face of it has great attraction since when the applicability of a provision of law is made dependent on the happening of an event by using the word 'becomes', it would mean that the Rules would not apply until the event in question has happened. The word, 'become' would indicate a future event as distinguished from the existing one. But in the context the word has been used, there is no scope for adoption of such interpretation. It has to be remembered that the Rules have been framed after the amendment of the Act by Act 16/91 which directed that those Rules were to be framed in pursuance of the amendment of the Act by Act 15/1989 and that once such rules are framed, all the existing managing committees or the governing bodies of the aided or recognised educational institutions which had been constituted prior to the date of commencement of the 1991 Rules and even including those which had been superseded by that date shall be reconstituted in accordance with the Rules within one year from the date of its commencement and further stipulated that the existing managing committees or the governing bodies shall cease to continue in office on and from the date of the reconstitution. Such amendment of the legislative provision was absolutely specific and determination of the time frame within which all the managing committees or the governing bodies were to be reconstituted and even while reducing under Sub-section (4) of Section 7 the term of the existing managing committees or the governing bodies from five years to three-years, yet directed that despite the fact that the three years term of the existing bodies might not have been over, yet all such bodies are to be reconstituted within a year of framing of the Rules and that when the bodies are so reconstituted, the existing bodies shallcease to continue to hold office. The managing committees whose term had already expired before the lapse of one year from the commencement of the 1991 Rules would have not been continuing in office, as in respect of those schools the Inspector of Schools would have been remaining in charge after expiry of their term or the extended term, as was provided in Rule 9-A of the 1960 Rules. That being the legislative intention, the purpose of the 1991 Rules in framing Rule 28 could not be to defeat it. The Rules were framed to carry out the provisions of the Act and hence by use of the words 'becomes an aided one' and not making any other provision for reconstitution of the managing committees of existing aided schools, a vacuum in respect of such schools regarding their managing committees could not have been intended.
5. To appreciate such view, it is necessary to also appreciate the school behind the group of Rules 25, 26, 27 and 28. These four rules were intended to tackle within their ambit the entire matter regarding constitution and reconstitution of managing committees of High Schools from the stage of their establishment to the stage of becoming aided ones. As has been seen. Rule 25 deals with the first constitution of the managing committee when the school is not an aided one. Rule 26 deals with approval of that managing committee and Rule 27 with its reconstitution. The only other rule is Rule 28 which deals with a school which becomes aided crossing over its period of being a purely private educational institution. In that context, the words 'becomes an aided one' can only mean a school becoming aided after its establishment as distinguished from its continuing as a private high school and not of becoming an aided high school after commencement of the Rules which meaning if assigned to these words would, in the context, invite the charge of a highly technical and artificial interpretation being given to the words which instead of advancing the purpose of the statute, retards it.
6. In considering the meaning of Rule 28 as regards its applicability to the existing aided high schools, consideration of the legislativedirection for framing of the rules is also of great significance. Section 7(5) of the Act, as has been noticed earlier, compulsorily required the existing managing committee of aided high schools including those which were under supersession to be reconstituted in accordance with the rules to be framed under Act 15 of 1989, within one year of framing of the rules, and the existing managing committees to continue in office only till the reconsti-tution was not made. Rules have been framed only in pursuance of such direction of the Act and hence there would be a presumption of the rules having been framed to carry out its purposes. No doubt the rules have been framed under the Act as amended by Act 15 of the 1989, but that itself is in pursuance of the amendment of the Act by Act 16 of 1991. It would hence not stand to reason that the operation of Rule 8 was confined to only schools which would become aided after the commencement of the rules and leave a word so far as reconstitution of the existing managing committee was concerned. It could not be the intention of the rule making authorities, while providing for reconstitution of the managing committee of schools which become aided after the commencement of the rules, to keep in abeyance such reconstitution of the existing managing committees for varying periods up to three years allowing these committees to continue to function and intending that only thereafter they would be reconstituted in accordance with the 1991 Rules. There could not be any purpose to bring in existence such two different classes of managing committees, and at any rate the non-constitution of these managing committees and their continuance beyond the expiry of one year from the commencement of the rules would be in direct violation of the provisions of Section 7(5) of the Act. This submission of Mr. Mallik must hence fail. It follows, once it is held that Rule 28 applies to all aided High Schools, the reconstitution of the managing committees, as contemplated Under Section 7(5) of the Act, of such schools was to be made within one year of commencement of the Rules, i.e. within 17-12-92 and is to consist of persons not nominated by the outgoing managing committees but of ex-officio andchosen members as perscribed under therules.
7. Explained in such context, the submission of Mr. Mallik based on Rule 34 of the 1991 Rules has no substance and hence must be rejected.
8. A further submission is that Rule 28, as framed is unworkable since neither that rule nor any other provision in the Rules provides the, modality for effecting the reconstitution of the managing committees of the aided high schools after the commencement of the Rules. It is submitted that even though the personnel to become members of the managing committee are specified yet there is no provision as to how the actual procees of reconstitution of the managing committee with them as members would start and coordinated. The communication made by the Inspector of Schools directing the Headmasters to meet him with the relevant informations or the communications from him to the Sub-Collectors of Athgarh and Banki to make their nominations are not contemplated in the Rules as the Inspector is not vested under it with any powers to initiate the process of reconstitution. Such exercise of power by the Inspector of Schools is not only not contemplated under the Rules but is also contrary to its provisions and spirit since Rule 28 itself shows in Sub-rule (4) thereof that the Inspector on receipt of intimation from the Secretary is to approve the Jist and suggest changes with reasons within thirty days of its receipt and under the provisos, the Inspector is the approving authority of the managing committees.
9. The rule admittedly is silent in many respects. There is no provision in the Rules as to who shall approach the Sub-Collector to make his nominations or who shall communicate with the Government to make their nominations of President in the case of a private school established by a trust nor is there any provision as to who shall approach the local M.L.A. or the Chairman of the Panchayat Samit/N.A.C./Municipality to make their nominations. Even further there is no provision in the rules to meet a situations where the different nominations contemplated to be made under the Rules are in fact not made.
10. Undoubtedly such blank areas of the rule, as pointed out by the learned counsel, are apparent and it can also be amended that unless solutions are located the constitution or reconstitution of the managing committees would become maintainable. It is for such reason, an analysis of the Rules is necessary.
11. A mere glance at Rule 28 shows it to be in sheer contrast with Rule 27 as far as the personnel to constitute the managing committees are concerned. In the managing committees of aided high schools, there is no provision for nomination of members by the members of the outgoing managing committees as a jointly exercised move. The President and the Secretary hold the post in ex-officio capacity. The rule of course does not say that the President and the Secretary are members, but then by all established practice, the President and Secretary are members of the managing committees and hence there cannot be any dispute about the same so far as the managing committee constituted under Rule 28 is concerned. The constitution of the managing committee is almost of a prefixed body with variations only so far as the nominations by the M.L.A. and the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti/N.A.C./Municipality, and of the President of the persons interested in the field of education are concerned. Even so as nominations are to be made and the list of the members of the managing committee is to be submitted to the Inspector of Schools for approval, it has also to be acceded, as is submitted by the learned counsel, that Rule 28 does not contemplate the Inspector to be the initiating authority of the constitution of the managing committee. Though that is correct, yet it can hardly be said that the rule does not even impliedly provide the mechanism to carry out its direction. Once it is accepted that the purpose of the Rules is to provide for constitution or reconstitution of the managing committees inter alia of aided High Schools, it becomes the duty of the courts to interpret the Rules in a manner so as to achieve and or advance its purpose and in the process it may not only become necessary but would be even wholesome to attempt to articulate some of the latest provisions of the Rules and even, if necessary to read wordswhere they necessarily arise out of the context. In the modern trend of interpretation of statutes, the archaic concept of interpretation adhering to strict rules of grammar are absolute and what has become firmly anchored as a proper manner of interpretation is the contextual one, so that they attempt is made to discover the elusive words necessary to materialise the purpose of the rule. It is for such reason that whenever it becomes absolutely necessary, and without doing violence to the expressed words of the statute, a creative and innovative approach is to be adopted. In AIR 1978 SC 548 (Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa), Chief Justice Beg dealing with the necessity of such exercise by the Court observed (para 3) :
'Perhaps, with the passage of time, what may be described as the extension of a method resembling the 'armchair rule' in the construction of wills, Judges can more frankly step into the shoes of the legislature where an enactment leaves its own intentions in much too nebulous or uncertain a state.'
In making the observations, reliance was placed by His Lordship on AIR 1961 SC 1107 (1115) (M. Pentiah v. Verramallappa) where Justice Sarkar approved the following passage adopted by Lord Denning, L. J. in (1949) 2 All ER 155 (at p. 164) (Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher) :
'When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. We must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament -- and then he must supplement the written words so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of legislature. A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this rusk in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.'
In AIR 1991 SC 101, (Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress) though the views of Chief Justice Mukherjee to uphold the validity of the regulation 9(h) ofthe Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment of Service) Regulations, 1952 by reading it down was not accepted by the majority, yet the correctness of the views regarding the necessity of judicial activism when it becomes necessary to give effect to the intention of the legislature was never doubted and it was only held that the doctrine of reading down was inappropriate in the particular case. Justice Mukherjee posed himself the question :
' -- Can the Judges articulate what is inarticulate and what can be reasonably and plainly found to be inherent on the presumption that a legislature or a law making body with the limited authority would act only within limitations so as to make the legislation or law valid and the legislature must be presumed to act with certain amount of knowledge and fairness protecting the rights of people concerned and aiming at fairness in action (Para 113)
Answering the proposition it was observed :--
'It has, therefore, been said that when a question arises whether the power has been properly conferred and even if so, the extent of it, Lord Denning has opined that a Judge in such a situation cannot simply fold his hand and blame the draftsman and lock for new enactment. Lord Denning invites us to set to work as the consideration task of finding the intention of the Parliament or the law making body and we must, however, do this not only from the language of the statute, because, as we have seen, language is an imperfect medium and very often thoughts are perpetually in search of 'broken language'. But the Judge must also do it from a consideration of the social conditions which give rise to it, and of the mischief which it was intended to remedy and also in the light of the constitutional inhibitions and then supplant the written words and add to it and give force and life 'to the intention and purpose of the legislature or the law making authority. A Judge must not alter the material of which a law or an instrument is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases and if one may venture to say, make articulate the inarticulate promise but make articulate only which follow from necessary compulsions : of the situations and the constitutional position. See in this connection the conservations of Lord Denning in The Discipline of Law at page 12 (Para 116)
Elsewhere it was observed :--
'But it must proceed on the promise that the law making authority intended to make a valid law to confer power validly or which will be valid. The freedom, therefore, to search the spirit of the enactment or what is intended to obtain or to find the intention of the Parliament gives the court the power to supplant and supplement the expressions used to say what was left unsaid. This is a power which is an important branch of judicial power, the concession of which if taken to the extreme is dangerous, but denial of that power would be ruinous and this is not contrary to the expressed intention of the Legislature or the implied purpose of the legislation (Para 118).
In our own Court, the principle was adopted in AIR 1992 Ori 287 (Gurudev Singh Rai v. Authorised Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests) after analysing a number ofdecisions that the judiciary would clothe itself with the power of law making, over interstitially, only in very exceptional cases where non-supply of words in a statute would result in so unjust a result which the Court's conscience would not permit. It is not beyond the competence of High Court to read words in a statute which are not there.
Even though Rule 28 does not make any express provision regarding the mode of constitution, yet it is seen in Rule 33 of the Rules that the Secretary is the principal executive of the managing committee and is competent to make correspondence on its behalf. Under Rule 28(3) he has to intimate the constitution of the managing committee for its approval and under Sub-rule (a) the Inspector on receipt of the intimation from the secretary may either approve the list or suggest changes in it. If the secretary of the managing committee, i.e. the Headmaster, is to intimate the Inspector regarding constitution of the managing committee and send the list for his approval andhimself is the principal executive of the managing committee and is the authorised person to make correspondences on its behalf, it must be taken as the dominant intention of the rule that he is the person who shall set out for the purpose of constitution of the managing committee as otherwise he cannot send the list to the Inspector. Such interpretation is also available from third proviso to Sub-rule (4) which says that no meeting of the managing committee convened during the intervening period from the date of intimation by the Secretary under Sub-rule (3) till the date of final approval by the Inspector shall be invalid for the reasons of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the managing committee. The sub-rule, on its own words, show that the managing committee does not wait for functioning till the approval has been obtained. As soon as the Secretary makes the intimation, the managing committee can start functioning despite the fact that there are vacancies in its constitution or that there are other defects in the constitution. Hence on the commencement of the Rules, it was the duty of the Headmaster of the school, keeping in view the dead line of 17-12-1992, to set about for formation of the managing committee and make necessary intimation to the Inspector of Schools. For the purpose, he was to correspond with the ex offico President and where the Government is to nominate the President, with the nominated President, with the M. L. A. and the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti/NAC/ Municipality, for sending their nominations.
12. The position being thus explained, the existing managing committees of the schools whose terms might not have been over by 17-12-1992 or whose terms though might have been over by that date but which would have been continuing in office under the proviso to Rule 6(2) of the 1980 Rules would have no role to play in the reconstitution of the managing committees under Rule 28 of (sic) and on the formation of the managing committee at the instance of the ex-officio Secretary of the managing committee under the Rules, were to go out of office. It is not necessary to declare regarding the schools where the Inspector of Schools would be continuing in charge of themanaging committee as the same principles would apply.
13. The impugned correspondence in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 respectively O. J. Cs. 963, 1195 and 1509 of 1992 having been issued by the Inspector of Schools to the Sub-Collectors and the Headmasters are obviously not contemplated under the Rules but all the same though such correspondences are strictly not legal, yet as these were oriented only to give effect to the rules for formation of managing committees before the expiry of the appointed date, and it is not the case before us that any result not intended by the Rules have become the outcome of the correspondences by the Inspector of Schools, I think exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court to set at naught the process initiated for constitution of the managing committees is not invited as ultimately no injustice is seen to have been done.
Now it may be considered as to whether under Rule 28(1)(i) one Tahsildar or the Additional Tahasildar is contemplated to be the President of the managing committee or the Sub-Collector is to occupy that after the question arises because of the word 'who' that follows the words 'Sub-Collector of the subdivision' and because of which the sentence also appears to lend itself to the meaning that the Sub-Collector is the President who shall nominate the Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar to be a member. Nowhere the provision as it stands shown that the Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar is to be nominated by the Sub-Collector which means that the act of nomination is in the passive voice where the Tahasildars/Additional Tahasildar suffers the nomination by the Sub-Collector. The Tahasildar/Additional Tahasildar being the subject of the sentence the provision even grammatically would mean the Tahasildar or Additional Tahasildar to be the President. The meaning becomes further clear if Rule 2S(1)(i) is put in the active voice, which is same, would lead the Sub-Collector of the sub-division is to nominate the Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasitdar of the Tahasil in which the school is situated for the purpose who shall be the President in ex-officiocapacity. The words 'for the purpose' in Rule 28(1)(i) obviously refer to the opening words of Sub-rule (i) and words 'for the purpose of reconstitution,' assist this by the provision means that the Tahasildar or the Additional Tahasildar is to be nominated for the purpose of reconstitution of the managing committee. The Sub-Collector of that subdivision who shall be the President in ex officio capacity. Even otherwise, contextually interpreted, the provision does not lead itself to the meaning of making the Sub-Collector the President since that could not have been meant to framing the rule as it would result in almost ..... a physical imposibility.
There would be a large number of schools in a sub-division and it would not be possible for the Sub-Collector of the sub-division to be the President of all such schools. The Sub-collector of a sub-division is an administratve officer with heavy and myriad responsibilities and it would never be possible on his part to discharge the duties as President of each aided high school of the sub-divisions.
14. One more submission made regarding unworkability of the Rules is also to be noticed. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the 1991 Rules make no provision as to who shall remain in charge of the managing committee during the period between expiry of the term of the managing committees and the constitution of new managing committees. It is noticed that the scope of raising such submission exists. There is no provision in the Rules as to when shall the Secretary send the list to the Inspector for approval. Since the term is fixed as three years, if the list is not sent under Rule 28(3) before expiry of the term, the period of interregnum between the expiry of the term and sending of the list would not be covered by the third proviso to Sub-rule (4). There is no provision in the Rules also that in such event either the existing managing committee would continue to be in charge or the Inspector of Schools shall take over. We have taken note of such situation though the position does not arise in these cases so that the situation may be taken note of and appropriately remedied by the rule-making authority.
15. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions which are dismissed.
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
16. I agree.