IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6700 of 2010 1. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI BHAGWAT SHARMA R/O VILL.- HARPURA, P.S. VIKRAM, DISTT.- PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER, SANGDARSHAN SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL BHORI, P.S. TEKARI, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT EDUCATION BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR SANSKRIT EDUCATION BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GAYA 6. SRI SITA RAM SHARMA S/O LATE BECHAN SHARMA R/O VILL.- BHORI, P.S. TEKARI, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kuamr no.3. For respondent no.6 : Mr. Sanjay Kuamr. For the State : Mr. Surendra Kuamr. 3 8.11.2010 The petitioner has come up to this Court for two reliefs. Firstly, his appointment as permanent Headmaster of a Sanskrit school having been approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The District Education Officer has no authority to appoint another as Incharge Headmaster much-less a person who lacks the eligibility to be a Headmaster. He accordingly prays for a direction to the respondent to hand over charge and not obstruct the functioning of the petitioner as the Headmaster. The second grievance is that the term of the Managing Committee of the school having come to an end. The process for appointing a new Managing Committee has to be carried out by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The preliminary list has been sent for its approval. The Board must immediately act upon it 2 and sent it back with whatever recommendation. It requires so that further process can be taken to establish the Managing Committee at the earliest. The private respondent, who has been made acting Headmaster has since appeared and filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. He is respondent no. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 very fairly concedes that he is not eligible for being appointed as Headmaster because he has not academic qualification of Acharya. He does not dispute that the petitioner has the degree of Acharya twice over. Petitioner points out to the approval granted by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to his appointment as Headmaster. Respondent no. 6 points out that it is an order of the Secretary of the Board and not of the Board. In my view, the submission is misconceived. It is a communication of the decision of the Board being made by the Secretary. In that view of the matter, the Board did not challenge this decision as not being the decision of the Board. That being so, the appointment of the writ petitioner, as Headmaster of the school, in question cannot be faulted or questioned. If that be so, then the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to designate respondent no. 6 as acting Headmaster. He must immediately cancel the stay order and respondent no.6 must immediately handover the office to the petitioner in that regard. 3 Coming to the second grievance, the life of Managing Committee has to be constituted under the supervision of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board because it is the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board that grants approval stage by stage in course of the formation of the Managing Committee. The recommendation having been sent by the Headmaster, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board cannot sit over it. It has sent back immediately the recommendation with its notes of approval or otherwise but it has to do so immediately. Failure to do so is the failure to exercise its jurisdiction. Thus, if Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board does not make the recommendation within four weeks from today, a mandamus shall issue directing it to do so immediately. It cannot stop the process but having statutory power in that regard must act within a reasonable time reasonably in furtherance to the object with which the said power has been conferred. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)