IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4754 of 2010 1. SANT KABIR MAHANT RAM DAYAL DAS MAHAVIDYALAYA , MAHANT RAM LAKHAN NAGAR BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ACHARYA MAHANT RAM DAYAL DAS JI , CHELE LATE ANURAG DAS JI, ACHARYA CHELA LATE MAHANT RAM LAKHAN DAS JI, R/O KABIRPANTHI MATH, BIDUPUR BAZAR, P.S.BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI Versus 1. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY ) PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 2. CHAIRMAN , BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY) PATNA 3. SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY ) PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY ) PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondent B.S.E.B.:- Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Adv. For the Intervenor:- Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv. -------------- 2. 2.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) and the intervenor in the I.A. No. 6714 of 2010. The petitioner is stated to be a primary Donor of the Sant Kabir Mahant Ram Dayal Das Mahavidyalaya, District-Vaishali. He is aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2010 replacing the earlier Ad-hoc Management Committee constituted on 19.12.2005 by a fresh Ad-hoc Management Committee. The intervenor claims to be the incharge Principal who is sought to be ousted by the impugned order. 2 The respondent Board is the successor body to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council regulated by the erstwhile Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). This act has been adopted by the respondent Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor submit that the Ad-hoc Managing Committee dated 19.12.2005 never came into existence and the erstwhile Managing Committee continued to function. Alternatively, it is submitted that any Ad-hoc Managing Committee of 19.12.2005 could be replaced only by a regular Managing Committee and not by another Ad-hoc Managing Committee. Counsel for the respondent Board made submission from the Act. Section-44 of the Act provides for formation of a Governing body of a recognized institution. Section-44 (2) read with Rule-8 framed under the Act provides for a life of three years for the Managing Committee except for the teachers representative whose term of office shall be of one academic year. Section-44 (4) provides that an Ad- hoc governing body may be constituted pending the 3 formation of a regular governing body. Section 2(K) defines the governing body of the institution as persons incharge of the work of management of the institution so entrusted by law. This Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the contention that no Ad-hoc Managing Committee was constituted by any order dated 19.12.2005 for the simple reason that even if there existed a Managing Committee in accordance with the law prior thereto its term has clearly expired under the Act and the rules. That brings to the fore the question whether an Ad-hoc governing body could be replaced by another Ad-hoc Governing body. The life of a managing committee constituted in accordance with law itself being three years, the question of Ad-hoc Managing committee continuing since 19.12.2005 long after the term of a regular Managing Committee has expired is not sustainable. Therefore, the Constitution of a fresh Ad-hoc Managing Committee replacing the earlier Ad-hoc Managing Committee by the impugned order dated 4.1.2010 is palpably illegal. At this stage, the Court does not consider it necessary to decide the submission that if the council was in session, the Chairman of the council 4 along under Section 22(5) could not have passed the impugned order. It is not in controversy at the Bar that funds are being released by the State Government. The submission has also been made at the Bar that in this fight for supremacy of the Managing Committee, the funds released by the State Government and possible misutilization is also an issue. From the records as they stands, this Court is more than satisfied that the respondent Board which was required to Act in accordance with and enforce the Act and the Rules has acted more in breach of the same fueling the present controversy for supremacy of the Managing Committee. The Court is conscious that at this stage to simply quash the order dated 4.1.2010 may create a situation where the academic environment may be disturbed and teaching in the institution may also possibly be affected. But simultaneously, the Court is satisfied that the fresh Ad-hoc Managing Committee constituted by the impugned order dated 4.1.2010 does not appear to be having the sanctity of law. The new Ad-hoc Managing Committee constituted by the impugned order has not been 5 made a party respondent. It is therefore not possible for this Court to pass any positive final or interim orders behind their back. The matter is therefore appropriately referred to the Chairman of the respondent Board who shall proceed to issue notice to the new Ad-hoc Managing Committee. If the petitioner so seeks the relief before him, the Chairman pending appearance of the new Ad-hoc Managing Committee may pass appropriate Ad-hoc interim orders with regard to administrative and financial matters in so far as the fresh Ad-hoc Managing Committee is concerned and proceed to adjudicate the matter finally after the new Managing Committee enter appearance and submits its reply. Let the Chairman of the respondent Board in the aforesaid manner then ensure the Constitution of a regular Managing Committee within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)