IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4900 of 1997 MD.MASWOOD ALAM son of Md. Sulaiman resident of village- Andauli ( P. O.) P. S. Parihar District, Sitamarhi at present posted as Head Maulvi Madarsa Islamia Arabia Rampur Kondar, P. S. Kesaria, District East Champaran… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Sri Krishanpuri, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Sri Krishnapuri, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Sri Krishnapuri, Patna. 5. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Rahmatullah, son of Md. Rasool resident of village Rampur Kondar, P. S. Kesariya, District East Champaran. 7. Abdullah son of Abdus Sattar, resident of village- Rampur Kondar, P. S. Kesariya District East Champaran. .. Respondents. ----------- 9. 13.07.2010 Heard Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also Mr. Rashid Alam, learned counsel for the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟). The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(a) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction quashing the order dated 25.4.1997 passed in Appeal No. 14/93 by the Special Director, Secondary Education Bihar, Patna by which the approval granted to the petitioner‟s appointment by the Bihar State Madarsa Board has been set aside as contained in Annexure- 13 to this petition. (b) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to function on the post of Head Maulvi in the Madarsa in question 2 and also to make payment of entire arrear as well as the current salary to the petitioner and also to the other teachers on the basis of bill signed by the petitioner. (c) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction restraining the respondents form interfering in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner on the post of Head Maulvi in Madarsa Islamia Arabia Rampur Kondar in the District of East Champaran.” Mr. Roy while making the submission in response to the aforementioned relief has straightway raised a pure question of law. He has submitted that the order passed by the Special Director, in purported exercise of power under Section 28 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act holding the Chairman of the Board to have no independent power in the matter of approval of appointment or termination of service is patently incorrect inasmuch as not only the Act itself provides for such delegation of power in favour of Chairman of the Board but as a matter of fact the Madarsa Board by Resolution dated 29.8.1983 in exercise of its statutory power had fully authorized and delegated the Chairman of the Board to exercise certain powers and functions of the Board. In this 3 context, he has also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Azeem Haidri vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2001(3) BLJ 83. Counsel for the State who actually was required to defend the impugned order of the Special Director is not in a position to either wriggle out the judgment of this Court or take any stand for supporting the impugned order passed by the Special Director. Learned counsel for the Board on the other hand straightway take a stand that there being a resolution of the Board authorizing Chairman of the Board to function and power of the Board to the extent of power delegated in him, the view taken by the Special Director cannot be countenanced in law. Having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions and the materials on record, this Court would find that the only reason for interfering with the service of the petitioner who was made respondent no. 11 in the appeal preferred before the Special Director was that he was appointed on the post of Head Maulavi in Madarsa Islamia Arabia Rampur Kondar upon approval of his service by the Chairman of the 4 Board. Apparently, the attention of the Special Director to the aforesaid resolution passed by the Board on 29.8.1983 does not seem to have been brought to his notice. Since the aforesaid resolution is not on record of this case, the issue of fact and law has to be once again reexamined by the Special Director. That being so, the solitary reason for setting aside the approval of service the petitioner being seemingly based on an apparent error on the face of record, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-13 passed by Special Director, Secondary Education is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to now decide the appeal afresh strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)