IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9647 of 2002 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MADARSA ISLAMIA JOGINDER EIDGAH, P.O. GAIRKI, P.S. JOKIHAT (MAHALGAON) DISTRICT ARARIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MD. ABDUL HASSAN. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Bihar State Madarsa Board through its Secretary. 3.The Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 4.The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patana. All at Krishnapuri, P.S. Shastrinagar in the town and District Patna. 5.The District Education Officer, Araria, P.O./P.S. Araria, District Araria. 6.The Area Education Officer, Jokihar, P.O. and P.S. Jokihat, District Araria. 7.Md. Nayeemuddin, Assistant Teacher, Madarsa Islamia yogendra Eidgah, P.O/P.S. Jokihat, District Araria. 8.Md. Maslehuddin son of Amar Ahmad R/O Village Purandaha, P.S. Simraha (Forbesganj), District Araria. ----------- 7 21/6/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application by efflux of time has been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as, counter signing of the bill submitted by the Senior Assistant Teacher must have been resolved by the District Education Officer. If however such dispute has not been resolved only because of an interim order passed by this Court on 7.10.2002 the decks for the same must be made clear by this Court inasmuch as this Court cannot go into the question as to which of the two, the Managing Committee or the District Education Officer, is correct. The remedy for the petitioner again lies only before the Special Director of the State Government under whose authority the 2 District Education Officer makes the payment. Further remedy in terms of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution or in terms of General laws will be only by filing a civil suit where the Managing Committee can substantiate its rights with regard to manner in which the authority of Principal in submitting the bill and its counter signing, can be gone into in the light of the rules, regulations and by-laws of the Managing Committee. All these being pure question of fact, this Court while vacating the interim order dated 7.10.2002 would only observe that if the counter signing of the bill as questioned by the petitioner in this case is still relevant, the competent authority of the Board/State Government will do the needful for resolving the crises so that the genuine person entitled for payment do not suffer in any manner. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)