IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5990 of 2002 MOHAMMAD ALIMUDDIN son of Md. Ghuran, resident of Kakorha, P. S. Saketpur, District Darbhanga at present residing at New Green Medical Hall, Kadirabad, P. S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai. …. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Secondary Education, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Madarsa Education, Board, Vidhyapati Road, Patna, through its Secretary. 4. The Chairman Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidhyapati Marg, Patna. 5. The President Madarsa Islahul Muslemin Imamganju, Kadrabad, P. s. Bachhwara, District Begusarai.. 6. Md. Zafeeruddin son of late Haji Nasiruddin, the erstwhile Secretary, Madarsa Islahul Muslemin Imamganj, Kedrabad, P. S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai. 7. Quamar Subhani (Expert) Teacher Madarsa Daruttakmil, Nawab Road, Chandwara, Town and District Muzaffarpur. 8. Zafrul Hussain son of Md. Illiyas, resident of village Belari, P. S. Ujiyarpur,District Samastipur at present at Madarsa Islahul Muslemin, Imamganj, Kadrabad, P. S. Bachhwara, District Begusarai… 9. The District Education Officer, Begusarai… Respondents. ----------- 5. 12.07.2010 No one appears for the petitioner nor any one has sought to represent the interest of Bihar State Madarsa Board. Only the counsel for the State is present. In this writ petition, the challenge of the petitioner is to the appellate order dated 5.3.2002 passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of Madarsa Board dated 7.8.2001. 2 From the reading of the aforementioned order it would be clear that Special Director had recorded a finding that Zafrul Hussain, respondent no. 8 was duly appointed by the Managing Committee of the Madarsa in question on the vacant post of Head Maulavi following the norms and procedures of regular appointment. In this regard the finding of the appellate authority reads as follows:- “…… I perused all papers carefully and found that Zafrul Hussain was duly appointed by the Managing Committee of the Madarsa in question on the vacant post of Head Maulvi following the norms and procedure of the regular appointment. 16. The signature of Abdul Manan Ansari, Md. Islam and Moinuddin are on the proceeding of the meeting dated 25.11.2000 and other papers relating the interview. They do not differ. The meeting of the managing committee was held on 25.11.2000 under the presidentship of Abdul Manan Ansari. In the said meeting, the respondent no. 7 was duly appointed. In such circumstances it is not beyond expectation that Abdul Manan Ansari, Md. Islam and Moinuddin have played double role in their own benefits by way of putting their signature on the another merit panel in favour of the appellant. But they did not succeed to prepare the resolution in respect of his appointment. Their role goes against the benefits of the Madarsa in question. 3 17. Undoubtedly, Zarul Hussain, respondent no. 7, was duly appointed on the vacant post of Head Maulvi by resolution dated 25.11.2000 passed by the managing committee which is competent authority as Madarsa in question is a religious minority institution. After examining all papers including the original proceeding book, the Chairman of the Madarsa Board accorded approval to his appointment. The said order was issued under Letter No. 2339-42 dated 7.8.2001. I do not find any illegality in the approval order vide letter No. 2339-42 dated 7.8.2001 and the appointment of the Zafrul Hussain on the post of Head Maulvi made by the managing committee of Madarsa Islahul Muslameen, Imamganj Qadrabad, District Bugusarai.” In view of the fact that the said finding of fact cannot be made a subject matter of writ petition unless the same is claimed to be either an error of record or perverse but in the pleading of the writ petition there is no such claim of the petitioners, this Court must reject the challenge of the petitioners to the both impugned orders. That being so, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)