IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7337 OF 1998 1.SUBH CHANDRA MISHRA, SUBH CHANDRA MISHRA, AT HARIPUR DIHTOL, P.S.KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 2.PREM KUMAR, PATHAK, S/O SRI SITARAM PATHAK, AT HARIPURDIHTOL, P.S KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. BOTH AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHERS IN THE PRIMARY UNIT OF RAMESHWAR BHAWAN SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDYALAYA, HARIPUR DIHTOL, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, SECONDARY PRIMARY &ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. . 4.THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, SECONDARY PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. . 5.THE BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. 6.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 19.08.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.06.1994 passed by the Special Director of Secondary Education, Bihar rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for giving approval of their services against the two posts of Primary Teachers in Rameshwar Bhawan Sanskrit Uchcha (Madhyamik) 2 Vidyalaya Haripur Dihtol, District Madhubani hereinafter referred to as the school. The facts to be noticed which would be sufficient to dispose of this writ application lies in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the aforesaid School is recognized Sanskrit school in which teaching was being imparted upto Madhyama (Secondary) level. The Government in fact only on 18.11.1989 had sanctioned two posts of teachers for the Primary Unit of the School in question and other schools, whereafter the case for approval of the services of the petitioners against newly created posts of Primary unit were referred to by the Managing Committee of the school to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and the Secretary to the Board by order dated 27.12.1989 had granted temporary approval of the services of the petitioners only for a period of three months w.e.f. 18.11.1989 i.e. upto 18.2.1990. It is on the basis of this approval, the petitioner had claimed for payment of their salary but when the 3 matter was ultimately placed before the Special Director, she by impugned order had rejected such claim by holding that the so called appointment of the petitioners in the year 1980 by the Managing Committee of the school against unsanctioned post could not be approved by the Board. In the considered opinion of this Court it is an admitted fact that the School in question became a Government School by Ordinance No. 32 of 1989 which was promulgated on 18.12.1989. In that view of the matter the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board on and after 18.12.1989 had no power and/or jurisdiction to give recognition and/or approval of the services of any teacher of the recognized Sanskrit taken over school and the matter of approval of service of the petitioners was supposed to be placed before the State Government which alone was competent at that point of time to approve the services of the petitioners. Therefore, the order passed by the Secretary to the Board dated 27.12.1989 was nullity in the eye of law and at least on 4 the basis of that, no benefit could have been conferred on the petitioners much less for payment of their salary. The life of the Ordinance NO. 32 of 1989 promulgated on 18.12.1989 was continued by successive ordinances till 30.04.1992, whereafter all the 429 Sanskrit Schools taken over by the State Government again became private recognized sanskrit Schools and went under the control of the Managing Committee. This aspect of the matter stands settled in Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Case of Subash Chandra vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1994(2) PLJR 359. In that view of the matter, even the order passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education on 27.06.1994 can also not be sustained, inasmuch as, at no point of time the Special Director of Sanskrit Education was vested with the power of approving/disapproving the services of the teachers of any recognized private Sanskrit School. Accordingly, this Court would also hold that the impugned order dated 5 27.06.1994 is a bad order which even otherwise could not have been passed by her after 30.4.1992 when the schools were once again reduced to private recognized Sanskrit Schools. In such schools the matter relating to decision for approval of service could have been taken by the Board on the proposal and/or resolution of the Managing Committee which is the appointing authority of the teachers in such schools. The aforesaid discussion, however would go to show that the claim of the petitioners of being appointed by the resolution of the Managing Committee in the year 1980 was not placed before the board even in next 9 to 10 years, and therefore, the Board could not take any decision till 17.12.1989. The petitioners, however, claim that they are still continuing in service and as such they would be entitled for payment of salary at least from the date the two additional posts of Primary Unit were sanctioned by the State Government on 18.11.1989. This aspect of the matter in the opinion of this Court will have to be 6 considered by the Board which will now take into account all the relevant aspects and if it is found by the Board that the two posts of Primary units sanctioned by the State Government in this school are still existing and the petitioners' appointment against such post was made in a valid manner by the Managing Committee it could still pass a fresh order according approval of services of the petitioners on receipt of the recommendation and/or resolution of the Managing Committee seeking such approval of service of the petitioners. Such approval of service by the Board having financial implication by way of payment of salary to the petitioners from the funds of the State Government will only be given from prospective date. If, however, it is found that the petitioners' services cannot be approved the Chairman of the Board shall record his reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. Such an exercise would be completed by the Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of 7 this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)