IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2807 of 2010 1. The Managing Committee Laxmi Narayan Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Uchcha Vidyalaya @Vidya Mandir Null Pandeydih,Jhajha,Through Its Secretary,Namely Smt.Chandra Kanta Pandey 2. Smt. Chadrakanta Pandey W/O Damodar Pandey R/O Vill Pandeydih,P.S.Jhajha,Distt-Jamui,The Secretary Of The Managing Committee,Laxmi Narayan -Swarigiya Pandit Rajhans Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Uchcha Vidyalaya @ Vidya Mandir Pandeydih Jhajha Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,Human Resources Development Department Government Of Bihar,Patna 2. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Through Its Secretary East Boring Canal Road,Patna 3. The Secretary ,Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Boring Canal Road,Patna 4. The Examination Controller,Bihar ,Sanskrit Shiksha Borad Boring Canal Road,Patna 5. The District Magistrate Jamui 6. The District Superintendent Of Education Jamui 7. Manee Shankar Pandey S/O Late Huro Pandey R/O Vill Pandeydih,P.S.Jhajha,Distt-Jamui,Presentely At Jakaraj Asthan,P.S.Jhajha,Distt-Jamui ----------------------- 09/ 20.09.2011 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Md. Anisul Haque, Assisting counsel to A.A.G. 9 for the State, Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and Mr. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 7. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to refrain from accepting the fees and forms of the school of which the petitioners herein were erstwhile Secretary and Headmaster 2 respectively. A further prayer was made seeking a direction to the Board to issue a formal order of closure of the school and in the aforesaid circumstances, the deed of gift through which the land in question had been donated in favour of the Governor of Bihar be set aside. The contention of the petitioners leading to the present writ petition is that the school had closed its operation and neither there were any students nor any faculty for management of the teaching work. It was thus contended that since the very object of establishment of the Sanskrit School had lost its force and school had become non-functional, hence necessary actions were required from the authorities of the Board as well as of the State Government declaring the school as closed. During the pendency of the proceedings affidavits have been filed by the parties including the Board as well as the private respondent each one individually disputing the position. It is the universal stand of the respondents that by reason of abstaining from the duties assigned to the post of Secretary and Headmaster, the managing committee of the school had decided to remove the petitioners from the managing committee and the present writ petition is a result of outburst of the said decision. It is contended that the school was very much functional with the teachers and students available on the rolls and that the Board had also accepted the fees and forms upon verification of the school. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed by the State and the Board in which it was stated 3 that the school after having been inspected was granted approval by the State Government for recognition and following which decision the Board has decided to provide recognition to the school which is only amongst the 35 schools out of 300 schools which were inspected for the purpose of grant of recognition. The approval granted by the State Government dated 22.7.2011 has been placed on the record of the proceedings by way of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board. It was, thus at the stage of filing of the counter affidavit, contended that the grant of recognition has remained a mere formality. Today this Court has been informed by Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha that the said recognition has also since been granted by the Board by certificate dated 14.9.2011 and a copy whereof has been produced during the course of the hearing which may be kept on the record of the proceedings. In that view of the matter, the grievance raised by the petitioner does not sustain. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner, if so aggrieved by the order, may challenge the same before the appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)