IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.295 of 2009 1. Bechan Kamat Son of Dhaneshar Kamat, resident of Village- Surtipatti, P.O. Chain Patti Singh, District- Supaul. 2. Sambhu Prasad Yadav, Son of Basudeo Prasad Yadav, resident of Village-Surtipatti, P.O. + P.S. Chain Singh, District-Supaul. 3. Sada Nand Yadav, Son of Jagdish Yadav, resident of Village- Phulwaria, P.O. Phulwaria, P.S. Maloth, District-Supaul. 4. Smt. Pramila Kumari, daughter of Shyam Karan Yadav, resident of Village- Mahipatti, P. O. Maloth, P.S. Maloth, District- Supaul. ------ Appellants/ Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chairman, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 3. Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna. 4. Special Director, Secondary School, Patna. 5. Commissioner, Secondary School, Patna. 6. Education Minister, Bihar, Patna. 7. Basudeo Prathmik-Sah-Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, through Secretary Vijay Narayan Mishra. 8. Bhola Kant Jha, Son of Kalanand Jha, resident of village + P.O. Phatehpur, P.S.Narpatganj, District-Araria, Secretary, Basudeo Prathmik Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya Kushhar Tulsipatti, Supaul. 9. Narendra Jha, Son of Jiwachch Jha, resident of village + Post- Jainagar, P.S.Vargama, District-Araria, the Headmaster, Basudeo Prathmik Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya Kushhar Tulsipatti, Supaul. 10. Ram Chandra Jha, Son of Jagarnath Jha, resident of Village Nath Patti, P.O.+ P.S. Balua Bazar, District-Supaul. 11. Ram Narayan Jha, Son of Basudeo Jha resident of Village and P.O. Madhubani, P.S. Balua Bazar, District-Supaul. 12. Ramdeo Sharma, Son of Raghunandan Sharma, resident of Kushhar, P.O & P.S. Balua Bazar, District Supaul. Intervenor Nos.10, 11 and 12 are Assistant Teachers Basudeo Prathmik Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya Kushar, Tusipatti supaul. Respondents/Respondents. 13. Devendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Misharilal Yadav, resident of village-Chain Singh Patti, P. O. Chain Singh Patti, P.S.- Chain Singh Patti, District- Supaul. 14. Hareram Sah, Son of Ram Kishun Sah, resident of Village- Chain Singh Patti, P.O. Chain Singh Patti, District-Supaul. Petitioners-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Private Respondents : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Advocate & - 2 - Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, Advocate. ------------- 08. 25.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this intra-court appeal, the appellants-writ petitioners have called in question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2008 in C.W.J.C.No.11192 of 1996 dismissing the said writ petition which, in fact, sought a declaration that Basudeo Prathamik-Sah-Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as „the school‟) functioning at Surtipatti with the appellants-writ petitioners as they are legitimate teachers and, thus, entitled for payment of salary from the grant made available by the Government through Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. 3. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the school in question was recognized on 23.03.1985 by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board in terms of Section 6 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 and the Gazette Notification of such recognition of the school in the list of 205 schools having been initially wrongly shown to be located in Surtipatti in place of Tulsipatti was also corrected by amendment in the Gazette Notification and as - 3 - such the decision by the State Government to recognize the school to be functioning at Surtipatti and making payment of salary of the teachers, the private respondents of this case, was absolutely unjustified. He has submitted that such order of the State Government assailed by the appellants- writ petitioners ought to have been not upheld by the learned Single Judge. 4. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that such question was decided by the authority after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants-writ petitioners and, therefore, a pure question of fact relating to a private Sanskrit school could not have been made subject matter of a writ petition. 5. Supporting the aforementioned submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has submitted that, in fact, the Board had recommended for recognition of the school with its seat at Tulsipatti, but the appellants-writ petitioners by furnishing misleading information had got it corrected by claiming it be to functioning at Surtipatti and, therefore when the issue was - 4 - raised before this court in C.W.J.C.no.4045 of 1990 and the matter was remitted to the State Government by this court in its order dated 29.07.1993 for deciding this pure question of fact in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, the resultant order of the State Government based on the report of the Collector of Saharsa District cannot be held to be bad and, in fact, the learned Single Judge having appreciated all aspects of the matter had correctly dismissed the writ petition questioning such inquiry report of the Collector of Saharsa District and resultant order of the State Government. 6. In the light of the aforementioned submissions we have carefully perused the materials on record. From the Gazette notification dated 13th April, 1985 it is found that in the list of 205 recognized schools the name of Basudeo Pratamik-Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya figures at serial no.12 of Primary-cum-Middle School. Thus, the government resolution dated 23rd March, 1985 which was published in Bihar Gazette had given recognition to the school as being claimed by the private respondents. Such Gazette Notification, in fact, was sought to be modified by a notification of the State Government - 5 - dated 14th of April, 1987 which was admittedly not published in the official gazette. However, as this notification dated 14th April, 1987 had led to stopping payment of salary of the private respondents, they had moved this court in CWJC No.8045 of 1990, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order: “ The grievance of the petitioners is that the name of the school in which he has been working has been changed as a result thereof they have seriously been prejudiced. Petitioners have contended that the School in question is situated in Birpur Sub-division but the private respondents have filed an application alleging therein that no School in the name of the petitioner is existing in Supaul Sub-divison as a result where of, the impugned order has been passed. According to the petitioners their services were approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, but despite the same the State Government has not passed any order. The question with regard to the identification of the petitioner‟s School can only be done by the respondents. The petitioners have already filed a representation before the State Government which is contained in Annexure-10 of the writ application. The said representation was filed on 23.1.1990. Unfortunately despite the notices were issued to the private respondents, they have not filed their show cause. The State in callous and indifferent attitude has not filed counter affidavit. In this situation, we have no option but to dispose of this writ application by giving the following directions. From a perusal of Annexure-10 to the writ application, it appears that the Hon‟ble Minister has forwarded the same to the Director of Sanskrit Education. The petitioner shall file a copy of the - 6 - said representation before the Special Director, Sanskrit Education within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Special Director shall make an enquiry in the matter in presence of the petitioners as also the concerned respondents. The Special Director shall see that the private respondents, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application by committing fraud are drawing the salary. If the Respondents do not appear before the Special Director within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, he may direct to stop the salary of the private respondents pending final decision of the matter. After the enquiry is concluded the Special Director shall submit his report to the Hon‟ble Minister who shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within one month thereafter. We direct the Special Director to complete the enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. This application is, thus, disposed of.” 7. It was, in fact, in the light of the aforementioned direction of the Division Bench in the order dated 29.07.1993 in C.W.J.C.No.8045 of 1990 the State Government had got an inquiry conducted through the Collector of the Saharsa District who was directed to hold inspection of both the schools, one being claimed by the writ petitioners and the other being claimed by the private respondents and send a comprehensive report as to which of the two schools was the real school which had been recognized by the State Government. The Collector of - 7 - Saharsa District thereafter had submitted a exhaustive report dated 09.07.1996. Based on such report of the Collector of Saharsa District, the State Government has passed the order dated 1st October, 1996 holding that the recognized school by the State Government in the resolution dated 23.03.1985 was actually located at Tulsipatti and not Surtipatti. 8. In the opinion of this court when the power of recognition of a Sanskrit school is vested in the Board with the prior approval of the State Government, the issue as to which of the school was recognized by the State Government could have been only decided by the State Government. In the present case, the Special Director and the Collector of the Saharsa District in their separate inspection reports had found the school at Tulsipatti to be one recognized by the Government in the year 1985. Admittedly at the time of such inquiry, the writ petitioners- appellants had been given opportunity to adduce evidence with regard to genuineness of their respective schools and as such the appellants-writ petitioners cannot now be allowed to raise pleas for either assailing the reports of the Special Director of the Government or the Collector of the - 8 - Saharsa District and the resultant order passed by the State Government holding the school at Tulsipatti to be one which was recognized by the State Government in the year 1985. 9. It has to be noted that teaching and non- teaching staff within the staffing pattern do not automatically become entitled payment of salary from the funds of the State Government unless there is such recognition followed by an order also for payment of salary by the Board in form of approval of appointment of teachers within the sanctioned posts as prescribed by the State government in its staffing pattern. In the present case, as has been noted above, the Government notification of recognizing 205 schools in the year 1985 was in respect of the school at Tulsipatti and, therefore, the writ petitioners- appellants cannot claim payment of salary as was prayed by them in the writ petition. In fact, this aspect of the matter was also gone into by the learned Single Judge who has recorded a clear finding in this regard which reads as follows: “This court finds that an enquiry has already been made and the petitioners were given an opportunity both by this Court in the earlier writ application as well as when the enquiry was - 9 - conducted to demonstrate before the authorities who were making the inspection that the School, was allegedly running in Village-Surtipatti and it was a genuine School but they had failed to satisfy the authorities. As such the matter can not be reopened time and again specially in the facts of this case where the enquiry was made and orders were passed in favour of the School running in Village-Tulsipatti……….” 10. We do not find any error in the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge. 11. It is well settled that a writ court while making a judicial review of an administrative order is not required to go into the merits of the decision and its line of probe has to be confined only to the decision making process. We, however, find no error in such decision making process. 12. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)