Patna High Court - Orders
Arun Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 April, 2014
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3027 of 2014
======================================================
Arun Kumar Mishra S/O Late Hiteshwar Mishra Vill. And P.O.- Sukhpur,
P.S.- Supaul District- Supaul
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Primary, Secondary And Adult
Education, Bihar, Patna, Vikash Bhavan, Patna
3. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Vikash Bhavan, Patna
4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna
5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna Null
6. The Chairman/Secretary Adhoc Committee, Shri Laxmi Narayan
Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bagar, Dist.- Bhojpur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7604 of 2014
======================================================
1. Dr. Mahendra Ray, son of late Ram Ekwal Rai, Resident of Village
Bagar, P.S. Tarari, Dist. Bhophjpur at Ara.
2. Swami Haigriva Charya, Chela of Late Baikuntha Charya @ Brij Bihari
Rai and Late Swami Janandana Charya and Grand Chela of Late Swami
Rajeev Lochana Charya, the Chairman and Mahanth Sri Laxmi
Narayanji Mandir and Mahavirji Mandir, At & P.O. Bagar, P.S. Tarari,
Dist. Bhojpur at Ara.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.3027 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Pathak, Adv.
For the Resp. 1 to 3 : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, AC to GP-16
For the Resp. 4 & 5 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv.
For the Resp No.6 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Adv.
(In CWJC No.7604 of 2014)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 2
4 25-04-2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The relevant portion of prayer of the sole petitioner in CWJC No. 3027 of 2014 reads as follows:-
"1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order vide memo no. 175 dated 29.10.2013 passed in Appeal no.44 of 2013 by the Appellate Authority, whereby and whereunder the constitution of the ad-hoc committee in the school in question, approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna (hereinafter referred as Board) vide memo no. 5249 dated 06.08.2013 has been cancelled and further declared illegal the entire works done by the said committee, simply on an erroneous ground that the said committee has not been approved by the Board, which seems to be non- application of judicious mind to the extent that the committee was constituted on 6.8.2013 and its duration is of six months and also having a provision of extension of six months and the Chairman of the Board has sufficient time to get the same approved by the Board but contrary to the provisions within two months of the constitution of the ad-hoc committee the appellate authority disapproved the same. And further issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents not to declare illegal such works done by the ad-hoc committee, which effects otherwise to the natural justice of the petitioner."
3. Similarly the prayer of the two petitioners in the second writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 7604 of 2014 reads as follows:-
"1. That the petitioners are filing the present Writ petition Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 3 praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the part of the order dated 29.10.2013 contained in Memo No. 175 (as modified/corrected by Memo No. 180 dated 01.11.13) (Annexure-5) passed by Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. 44/2013 whereby it has been held that the Appeal of the Petitioners is not maintainable as they are not declared the land donor by the Respondent Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board;"
4. As would be evident from the prayer quoted above, both of these writ applications basically involve the dispute of appointment/arrangement on the post of In-charge Headmaster and constitution of Managing Committee in private recognized Sanskrit School.
5. This Court however at the outset must observe that it is literally amazed in the manner in which the Government and the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟) has been running the affairs of the recognized Sanskrit schools. As is well known, these recognized private Sanskrit schools, by the State Government, are essentially private educational institutions who, by virtue of their recognition by the Board with the prior approval of the State Government, get two facilities, one by the Board with regard to allowing its students to appear in the Madhyama examination and the other by the State Government by way of financial aid for payment of salary to Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 4 teaching and non-teaching employees, working against the sanctioned post as per the staffing pattern prescribed by the State Government. Thus, the Government and the Board in law have a very limited control on these private institutions which are supposed to be working in the field of maintaining the ancient heritage of this country through continued teaching of students interested in Sanskrit language and literature.
6. It is also not in dispute that the power of appointment on the post of teaching and non-teaching post in these recognized private Sanskrit schools is exclusively in the hands of its Managing Committee and there is only a limited screening at the stage of the Board for the purpose of giving approval of service in order to ensure grant of payment of salary from the aid and assistance given by the States. Thus the role of the Managing Committee in these Sanskrit schools cannot be minimized. Prior to enforcement of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 as there was no statutory provision regulating the functioning of these recognized Sanskrit schools, they were governed by executive instruction. This Court in this regard would not like to make this order bulky, inasmuch as, the history of recognized Sanskrit schools and the limited control of the State Government has been examined and adjudicated at length in the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 5 10.4.2012 passed in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 (Sarswati Bhawan Jai Kant Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Chikna Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous cases.
7. Thus, when the facts of the present case is examined, the School, in question, namely, Sri Laxmi Sanskritochcha Vidyalaya, Bagar, Bhojpur (hereinafter referred to as „the School) is a very old private institution in the category of 429 recognized Sanskrit schools which, at no point of time, were also taken-over in terms of Ordinance No. 32/1989 w.e.f. 18.12.1989 but had once again become private institutions after lapse of repeated ordinances, with effect from 30.4.1992. In the aforesaid school, an Ad-hoc Committee till constitution of a regular Managing Committee was sought to be notified by the Secretary to the Board by an order dated 6.8.2013 in which the Mukhia, a local M.L.C. and a teacher of Patna was made in capacity of educationist as members of the Ad-hoc Committee apart from In-charge Principal. What would really astonish this Court is that a Mukhia of a Gram Panchayat was made the Chairman of this Ad-hoc Committee under the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 6.8.2013.
8. It was this order dated 6.8.2013 which became subject matter of appeal before the Special Director in Appeal No. Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 6 44 of 2013 at the instance of Swami Haigriwacharya and Mahendra Rai, the two petitioners of CWJC No. 7604 of 2014. That appeal has been allowed by the Special Director by his order on two grounds, firstly by holding that under 1978 Rules, the power of constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee was with the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and not in its Chairman and, therefore, even if the order passed by the Chairman of the Board had received the post-facto approval of the Board, such order constituting the Ad-hoc Committee of the school dated 6.8.2013 could not be sustained. Additionally, he had also gone to hold that the appeal of the aforesaid two persons, the petitioners of CWJC No. 7604 of 2014 was itself not maintainable because they were not the donors of the school and to that extent, their claim of being alleged donor was also rejected.
9. This Court however is dissatisfied with the aforesaid efforts of the appellate authority for two reasons. Firstly, if the appeal filed by the two petitioners of CWJC No. 7604 of 2014 itself was not maintainable because the appellants had no locus- standi, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to proceed further on merit and declare the constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee to be bad on any reason whatsoever. It does not mean that the court concurs with the findings of the appellate authority Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 7 on merit, inasmuch as, his findings and reasons recorded by him as with regard to the two of the appellants, namely, Swami Haigriwacharya and Mahendra Rai of being donors or otherwise both factually and legally incorrect because such determination of the claim of donor has to be done by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board itself and not by the appellate authority. Nothing was in fact brought to the notice of the Chairman of the Board that such determination had already been made with regard to the status of two persons as donors. The aspect as to whether their fathers had donated the land or the trust had donated the land is a question of fact and as to whether that will lead to his successors to also become donor of that school had to be essentially examined in the backdrop of the statutory provisions made with regard to qualification of the members of the Managing Committee.
10. In any event, the reliance placed by the Special Director on the provision of Bihar Rajya Arajkiya Sanskrit Vidyalaya Prabhand Samiti Niyamavali, 1978 notified by the State Government vide notification dated 24.5.1978 was wholly misplaced. This Rule though giving nomenclature of Rule is by way of pure executive instruction without any sanction of any statutory provision as was held by this Court in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board reported in 1988 PLJR Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 8 866 wherein it was held that no rules were framed as yet under the Act and, thus, in absence of any rule framed under the Act, the constitution of Managing Committee, in terms of the provision of the Act, is not possible. It was further held in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) that therefore a Managing Committee for an institution, which has been allowed to continue to function by the Board after the commencement of the Act, cannot be said to be properly constituted Managing Committee. Let it be noted that the same view has been affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal against the aforementioned decision in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Anr. which also has been reported in 1999(1)PLJR 529 wherein it was held that Board and not its Chairman can alone have the power to dissolve the Managing Committee in exceptional exception and public interest but not in a routine manner. The Division Bench in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) had also gone to hold that the Chairman of the Board, not having delegated any such power under the Act, cannot dissolve the Managing Committee and constitute an Ad-hoc Committee.
11. Let it be noted that prior to 1980, when the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board came into existence, there was no statutory provision for regulating the Sanskrit schools much less Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 9 for the constitution of the Managing Committee of the Sanskrit Schools. At that point of time, it was only by way of executive instruction with a different body, namely, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad was in office, which was entirely different in its constitution and shape. In that view of the matter, this Court would also not hold this purely executive instruction giving the name of 1978 Rules that it could have saved on account of the provision made in the first ordinance of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. As a matter of fact, a bare perusal of the 1978 Rules and the definition Clause of the Parishad to amend at least Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad as also its power of control extending to the institution imparting teaching up to Up-Sastri level by itself will go to show that these rules were made after the power of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University was taken away in relation to schools teaching up to Up-sastri level intermediate level. As a matter of fact, prior to 1976, the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University was itself given the power of regulating the teaching in the recognized Sanskrit schools.
12. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this Court cannot hold the 1978 Rules to be of any use for constitution of the Managing Committee in the recognized Sanskrit Schools, which now are under the zone of consideration and regulatory control of Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 10 the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board constituted for the first time in the year 1980 and continuing ever since then.
13. Once this aspect becomes clear, the order of the Special Director itself becomes vulnerable because his entire base for holding the constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee is the 1978 Rules.
14. The submission of Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 that in no event such appeal was maintainable at the instance of those two persons, namely, Swami Haigriwacharya and Mahendra Rai also does not impress this Court, inasmuch as, Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act itself lays down that any person aggrieved by an order of the Chairman or of the Board can file an appeal before the State Government. The expression "any person aggrieved"
however can not be mean that any person in the world can file an appeal and that would make the position of Respondent no.6 itself vulnerable.
15. There in fact, is nothing on record to show that after the death of the father of the respondent no.6, he was ever declared as a donor member of the Board. Mere inclusion of his name in some orders of the Board will not make him donor member of the Board. Such decision has to be taken by the Board Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 11 after giving notice to all concerned and verifying the records. Donor declaration cannot be said to an executive act on the part of the Secretary or the Chairman of the Board so as to claim any right. Any person, whose father may have donated to the institution, ipso facto cannot, cannot mean that even he would become the donor after the death of his father.
16. The line of rescue sought to be evolved by Mr. Singh that since the father was the Karta of the joint family of which the respondent no.6 was also a member and, therefore, every member of that family will be deemed to be donor will have no support either in Hindu law or even otherwise. First of all, that deed of gift to the institution will have to be examined and secondly if the joint family property was being donated in capacity of Karta, that Karta will have the authority to donate the property without any encumbrances to be sought to be created by any of the member of the family. The respondent no.6 cannot have two theories that though his father was the Karta and donated the land of the family yet the right of the respondent no.6 was still subsisting in that donated property. That would against the basic principle of Transfer of Property Act laying down the definition and consequences of gift.
17. Be that as it may, if the respondent no.6 is so Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 12 sanguine, he will have to obtain declaration in the civil court and if he does so and produce the decree of the civil court in his favour, the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board will definitely be bound to recognize him as a donor provided the suit is contested in presence of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and the school, in question.
18. Proceeding further, this Court must hold that as 1978 Rules was no longer in force after the first ordinance of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board came into effect in the year 1980, it has to be essentially held that there is no statutory provision for constitution of the Managing Committee in the recognized Sanskrit school.
19. That would bring this Court to the scope of Section 6(2)(Gh) where the power has been vested in the Board to constitute the Managing Committee of the recognized Sanskrit school. The power of the Chairman is not in synonym terms. If a power has been vested in the Board, its Chairman can only take a decision in terms of Section 11(4) of the Act. The life of the Managing Committee was well known and if a proper Managing Committee was not constituted in the period of three years and the extended period of three months, steps were to be taken for constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee through the decision of the Board well in advance. The Chairman of the Board could not have Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 13 constituted an Ad-hoc Committee in exercise of power under Section 11(4) of the Act. The power of the Chairman of the Board has also been explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Ram Nihore Pandey Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Balika Vidyalaya Fatahpur Shivhar, Sitamarhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(2)PLJR 469, wherein it was held as follows:-
"4. ------- He submits that the Chairman of the Board is empowered under section 11(4) of the Act to take necessary action when he is satisfied that an emergent situation exists in which it is necessary for him to take such action, and that a meeting of the Board is not possible and the Board is not in session . It was submitted that such emergency power must include the power to frame regulations under section 6 of the Act.
In our view, neither the said emergency exists nor there are circumstances to justify the exercise of power under section 11(4) of the Act. Apart from any other objection, framing of the regulation by the Chairman of the Board is clearly impermissible and illegal because though he may pass necessary orders in exercise of the power vested in the Board, such powers must be necessarily exercised in the discharge of executive functions and not in the discharge of power which are legislative in character. Neither the Board has power to delegate such functions to any member of the Board, nor the Chairman has a right to exercise those powers by himself."
20. What has really shocked this Court is Ad-hoc Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 14 Committee constituted on 6.8.2013 which included the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat as Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee. The inclusion of Mukhia is not even permissible in the regular Governing Body or Managing Committee even as per 1978 Rules, which was probably acted upon by the Chairman of the Board. Rule 1 of the 1978 Rules laying down the concept of 9 members Managing Committee reads as follows:-
^^v/;k;&3 1- fo|ky;&izcU/k&lfefr dk la?kVu& ¼1½ ^^mi&"kkL=h** Lrj rd ds izR;sd ekU;rk&izkIr vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ds fy; fuEukafdr lnL;ksa dks feykdj ,d izcU/k lfefr dk la?kVu gksxk& ¼d½ lac) fo|ky; dk iz/kku/;kid & insu] ¼[k½ ,d f"k{kd izfrfuf/k] ftls iz/kkuk/;kid vius fo|ky; ds f"k{kdksa esa ls ml fo|ky; esa f"k{k.k&lsok vof/k ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk ds vuqlkj okf'kZd pdzkuqdze ds }kjk euksuhr djsaA ¼x½ LFkkuh; fo/kku lHkk lnL;@ifj'kn lnL;
¼;fn ml {ks= eas gks½ rFkk yksd lHkk lnL; vkSj jkT; lHkk lnL; ¼;fn ml {ks= esa gks½ rFkk {ks=h; iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh ;k laLd`r ifj'kn }kjk euksuhr vU; dksbZ inkf/kdkjhA ¼?k½ nks nkrk lnL;] ftUgksaus py ;k vpy lEifr ds :i esa vFkok nksuks :iksa esa U;wure nks gtkj :i;s fo|ky; dks nku fn;k gks] fdUrq py lEifr ds :i esa nh xbZ nku jkf"k fo|ky; ds ikl cqd esa tek dh xbZ gks rFkk vpy lEifr ds :i esa nh xbZ lEifr dk Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 15 mi;ksx fo|ky; esa gks jgk gks vkSj og fo|ky; izcU/k&lfefr ds iw.kZ fu;a=.k esa gksA nkrk lnL;ksa dh ?kks'k.kk ¼vkthou nkrk ,oa lkekU; nkrk½ vko";d Nkuchu dj v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f"k{kk ifj'kn djsaxsA ¼M+½ nks vfHkHkkod izfrfuf/k] tks laca/k fo|ky; ds ,sls fu;fer Nk= dk vfHkHkkod gks tks de&ls&de ,d o'kZ ls ml fo|ky; esa v/;;u dj jgk gks vkSj tks ml fo|ky; dk f"k{kd ;k f"k{kdsrj deZpkjh ugha gksA ¼p½ nks f"k{kk&izseh] ftuesa ,d laLd`r dk yC/kizfrf'Br fo}ku gks] ;fn laLd`r dk yC/kizfrf'Br fo}ku miyC/k ugha gks rks mlds LFkku ij fdlh laLd`rkuqjkxh fo}ku dks fy;k tk ldsxkA mi;qZDr 9 lnL;ksa dh fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr la?kafVr dh tk;sxhA**
21. This Court has extracted the aforesaid provision of 1978 Rules only to show that the defence of the respondents or even of the petitioner that the Ad-hoc Committee was constituted in terms of the power given under Rule 1 of Chapter 5, is also a hopeless explanation. Rule 1 of Chapter-5 reads as follows:-
^^v/;k; & 5 1- rnFkZ lfefr & ¼d½ fcgkj xtV esa bl fu;ekoyh ds izdk"ku vkSj ifj'kn }kjk fo|ky;ksa dks izcU/k lfefr ds la?kVu ds vkns"k dh lalwpuk izkfIr frfFk ls 90 fnuksa ds Hkhrj fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr dk la?kVu vko";d gksxkA mDr vof/k ds Hkhrj ftl fo|ky; esa izcU/k lfefr dk la?kVu ugha fd;k Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 16 tk;sxk mls ,d ekl dk le; nsdj ifj'kn Li'Vhdj.k dh ekax djsxh vkSj mDr vof/k ds Hkhrj Li'Vhdj.k ugha izkIr gksus vFkok larks'ktud Li'Vhdj.k ds vHkko dh fLFkfr esa ifj'kn dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og ogkW fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr ds LFkku ij rnFkZ lfefr la?kfVr dj nsA ¼[k½ rnFkZ lfefr dh "kfDr;ka vkSj d`R; os gh gksxas tks fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr ds fy;s bl fu;ekoyh esa fufnZ'V fd;s x;s gSA ¼x½ rnFkZ lfefr esa dqy rhu ;k ikap lnL; gksaxs ftuesa ,d lfpo vkSj ,d v/;{k gksxkA iz/kkuk/;kid Hkh bldk lnL; gks ldsxk fdUrq og lfpo ;k v/;{k ugha gksxkA rnFkZ lfefr dk dk;Zdky vf/kdre 6 ekl gksxkA fo"ks'k ifjfLFkfr esa N%&N% ekl dh vof/k nks ckj c<+k;h tk ldsxhA**
22. Thus, 1978 Rules also does not prescribe the qualification for being nominated as a member of the Ad-hoc Committee. In other words, any one who is not eligible to become a member of the regular Managing Committee in terms of Rule-1 of Chapter-3 of 1978 Rules can never be member of the Ad-hoc Committee. Once this aspect would become clear, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that even the first Ad-hoc Committee dated 6.8.2013 was constituted illegally, firstly on account of exercise of power by the Chairman alone and secondly by nominating members who were not even eligible to be nominated. Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 17 To that extent, the order of the appellate authority in holding the order of the Chairman of the Board is justified.
23. This Court is informed and in fact the parties have also brought on record by producing the aforesaid order of the Chairman of the Board, another Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted on 25.3.2014 yet again by the Chairman of the Board. Now, in this Ad-hoc Committee Sri Braj Bihari Rai in capacity of the donor has been made as a Secretary, Dr. Mahendra Rai, respondent no.6 has been made Chairman in capacity land donor and also Lecturer in English. Smt. Jyoti Devi has been made member in capacity of local representative of the Legislature and Dr. Mithilesh Sharma has been named specifically as an In-charge Headmaster.
24. Thus, this Ad-hoc Committee has now two donors and one member of the Legislature. In the considered opinion of this Court, even this Ad-hoc Committee of four members also is not in consonance with 1978 Rules if that alone was sought to be followed by the Chairman of the Board.
25. Firstly the Chairman ought to have not constituted the Ad-hoc Committee by himself and should have placed the matter before the Board and secondly he ought to have not reversed the earlier order of the Chairman and Board by now Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 18 declaring the respondent no.6 as a donor member even when such claim was negatived by the Special Director in his appellate order. To that extent, the effort of the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board in overreaching the findings and the decision of the appellate authority is quite disturbing and definitely can be appreciated by this Court.
26. Be that as it may, since this Ad-hoc Committee also is not in accordance with law much less under Section 6(2)(gh), this Ad-hoc Committee has to also go. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, the Ad-hoc Committee dated 25.3.2014 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the Board is also hereby quashed. As a result of the aforesaid findings of this Court, it has to be essentially held that now there is no Ad-hoc Committee in existence after completion of tenure of the regular managing committee of the school.
27. As noted above, this Court, in view of the interim order dated 28.3.2014 in CWJC No. 15594 of 2013 recording the undertaking that rule for constituting of Managing Committee as also grant of approval of service to the teachers appointed by the Managing Committee is going to be notified by 6th of August, 2014, would, in the interest of smooth functioning of the school,, direct for functioning of an Ad-hoc Committee till framing of such Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 19 Rules by the State Government.
28. Such Ad-hoc Committee will consist of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Piro as the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee and Block Education Officer to be the Secretary of such Ad-hoc. The M.L.A. representing Piro Legislative Assembly Constituency shall be the third member along with the Head of the Department of Post Graduate in the Department of Sanskrit of the Veer Kunwar Singh University, who would be the fourth member. The In-charge Headmaster, however, will definitely be the 5th member of the Ad-hoc Committee. Thus, the aforesaid five members Ad- hoc Committee shall continue to function till the notification of the new Managing Committee as per Rules to be framed.
29. Before parting with, this Court also must record the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 that respondent no.6 has also filed a separate writ application being CWJC No. 7604 of 2014 assailing the same order of the Special Director, which is the subject matter of this writ application. He now fairly agrees that all the issues, which could have been raised by him in support of his submissions while assailing the aforesaid order, have been taken note of. That being so, this writ application, CWJC No. 7604 of 2014, is also disposed of in the terms of the judgment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 20
30. As this Court, for the reasons indicated above, has constituted the Ad-hoc Committee after noticing the apparent anomalies in the constitution of both the earlier Ad-hoc Committees, any of the decision taken by either of the two Ad-hoc Committees shall not be given effect to unless the same receives approval of the aforesaid present Ad-hoc Committee constituted under the order of this Court. In other words, each and every decision taken by the second Ad-hoc Committee will be subject to the review by this Ad-hoc Committee and if this Ad-hoc Committee approved, such decision then alone it shall be acted upon by any authority or person.
31. At this stage, this Court has also noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case Arun Kumar Mishra is the In-charge Headmaster and, therefore, this Court should direct for his being included in the Ad-hoc Committee in that capacity. This Court, however, would leave this issue also open to be decided by the newly constituted Ad-hoc Committee, which shall go into the issue as to whether Arun Kumar Mishra, petitioner of this case (CWJC No. 3027 of 2014) or someone else is entitled to work as an In-charge Headmaster till the appointment of a regular Headmaster.
32. In the result, both the writ applications are disposed Patna High Court CWJC No.3027 of 2014 (4) dt.25-04-2014 21 of in the aforementioned terms and anything said or held contrary by the Special Director, Sanskrit Education, Government of Bihar, the appropriate authority in Appeal No. 44 of 2013 or the order passed by the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board contained in his memo no. 5249 dated 6.8.2013 as well as the subsequent order of the Chairman dated 25.3.2014 as with regard to the Ad-hoc Committee of the school is made ineffective and inoperative, with a further direction that the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board shall constitute a fresh Managing Committee within three months from the date of framing of the Rules for constitution of the Governing Body of the recognized Sanskrit schools. And till it is done so, the Ad-hoc Committee as constituted by this Court in the present judgment shall remain in the office and would be discharging its all power and function in respect of functioning of the school.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-