IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9721 of 2008 The Managing Committee, Sri Marwari Kanya Pathshala having its Office at Sujaganj, P.S. Kotwali, District – Bhagalpur through its Secretary, Shyam Sundar Goud, S/o Ram Avtar Sharma, Resident of Sujaganj, P.S. Kotwali, District –Bhagalpur __________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan , Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. 6. The Regional Education Officer, Bhagalpur. ________ Respondents ----------- 02. 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Challenge is to the order dated 18.6.2008 contained in Annexure-9 issued by the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, by virtue of which the Managing Committee of the school in question stands dissolved under the so-called purported exercise of power given to the Superintendent. Simple background to the present dispute is that a vacancy occurred on the post of Headmaster/ Incharge of the school, what is known as Sri Marwari Kanya Pathshala at Sujaganj. The Managing Committee decided to appoint a person namely Sri Ram Kumar . Appointment of Ram Kumar irked one of the teacher Shail Kumari who claimed to be the seniormost in the school. She approached the High Court by filing a writ being CWJC No. 3835 of 2007. When the matter was taken up for consideration, a categorical submission was - 2 - made on behalf of the petitioner which is reflected in the order dated 3.7.2007 that the petitioner wanted to withdraw the writ application to file representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur along with relevant documents in support of her claim and the Regional Deputy Director thereafter was directed to dispose of the matter and communicate his decision through registered post. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observation of this Court dated 3.7.2007 has been treated as kind of mandamus on the Regional Deputy Director to appoint Smt. Shail Kumari , the senior most assistant teacher as Incharge of the school without stating any reason or the ground as to why the said decision has been reached by the Regional Deputy Director. The order dated 3.7.2007 is reflected in Annexure-2 to the writ application. Petitioner also brings to my notice that to put additional pressure may be on the Regional Deputy Director, even a contempt application being MJC No. 2635 of 2007 was filed in which very cleverly it had been urged and that Regional Deputy Director has already complied and passed order in favour of Shail Kumari and so the contempt has lost its meaning. I am informed now that said Shail Kumari has already superannuated and she is no longer in service of the petitioner’s school in question. But the matter did not stop at that. Taking the observation of the High Court further now the Managing Committee stands superseded by annexure-9 that the school is not being run in proper manner and even direction of this Court has not - 3 - been complied with. This is the basis on which the order impugned came to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the face of record it is apparent that innocuous observation of the High Court was treated to be as advantageous position both by Shail Kumari and Regional Deputy Director. Not only this, it has been made as one of the foundational ground for superseding the Managing Committee. In other words, decision has been taken on extraneous consideration and reasons which do not reflect actual state of affairs. A counter affidavit has been filed explaining the background under which impugned order came to be passed. But from what has been recorded by this Court in earlier part of the order it reflects the true state of affairs and for the interpretation given to the innocuous order passed by this court, the Court has no hesitation in recording that there was a deliberate mischief made on behalf of the official respondent and this was used as an opportunity to get rid of the Managing Committee. To that extent petitioner has made out a case for interference . The impugned order contained in Annexure-9 stands quashed. The writ application is allowed. I.A. accordingly stands disposed of . No separate order is required on the same. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)