IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.655 of 2005 SALANDHAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh,Sr.Advocate. Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gyan Shankar Advocate for B.S.S. Board & Mr. Purshotam Jha, Advocate For respondent no.5. For Respondent No.1: Mr Shanker Kumar, J.C. to A.A.G.V. --------- 5 30/7/2008 Heard the parties. Petitioner has in this writ application claimed both payment of salary as also his reinstatement in service by quashing of termination order. The petitioner being a teacher of 429 recognized Sanskrit Schools, Counsel for the respondents have taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ application on the ground that either issue relating to termination from service or any other condition of his service could not be made subject matter of this writ application because the Managing Committee which has terminated the service of the petitioner is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In order to support the aforesaid stand, counsel for the respondents have relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board & Ors’ reported in 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. 529 upholding the same view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha 2 Board reported in 1988 P.L.J.R. 866. He has also referred to the recent order of the Division Bench dated 21st January 2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 670 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the Division Bench has reiterated the ratio in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur (Supra) that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the decision of the managing committee in a recognized Sanskrit Schools which is not ‘State’within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Counsel for the petitioner in reply to the aforementioned preliminary objection has tried to distinguish the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench on the analogy that when payment of salary is being arranged by the State Government and the payment of salary to the teachers of recognized Sanskrit Schools is being made directly by the State Government, it cannot be said that the writ petition for setting aside the order of termination from service of teachers including the petitioner even under the decision of the Managing Committee will not be maintainable. In the opinion of this Court, such decision cannot be gone into at least by me sitting signally in view of the fact that this issue has been settled in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur ( Supra) where this very plea of payment of salary from funds of the State Government was specifically taken into consideration. Be that as it may, on the own showing of the petitioner he being a teacher of recognized 3 Sanskrit School and his services having been terminated by a decision of the Managing Committee, which does not come within the meaning of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be permitted to maintain this writ application. In the result this writ application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar