IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12209 of 2001 1. MD.MOINUDDIN ANSARI, S/O ABDUL LATIF ANSARI. 2. NAHIDA BANO, D/O NEHALUDDIN AND W/O WASI KHAN. 3. SARSWATI KUMARI, D/O MAJOR SINGH. ALL ASSTT. TEACHERS IN MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHATAWANA, P.S.-PHULWARI SHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 4. SECRETARY MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHATAWANA, P.S.-PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. SPECIAL DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.9938 of 2002 1. ABDUL KHALIQ, S/O LATE MD. USMAN, R/O MOHALLA-CHAURAHA PHULWARISHARIF, POST+P.S.- PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA ACTING HEADMASTER, MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHATWANA, PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. NADEEM NAWAZ AKHTAR, S/O LATE HAJI MD. KHURSHID, R/O MOHALLA-LODI KATRA, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT-PATNA, ASSISTANT TEACHER IN MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHATWANA, PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.5286 of 2003 SAYED MD.NASRUL HAQUE @ S.M.NASRUL HAQUE, S/O LATE S.A.MAJEED, R/O MOHALLA-ISOPUR, P.S.- PHULWARISHARIF IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 2 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 6. MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHATWANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MD. YASIN, R/O PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA. 7. MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, PHULWARISHARIF AT CHUNAUTIKUAN, P.S.-PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NEZAMUDDIN. 8. IDARA KHAIR-E-UMMAT, REGD. PHULWARISHARIF, P.S.-PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, ABDUL ALAIM. …………………RESPONDENTS. With MJC No.2240 of 2003 ABDUL KHALIQUE, S/O LATE MD. USMAN, THE ACTING HEADMASTER, MILLAT URDU MIDDLE SCHOOL, MOHALLA-MAHATWANA, P.S.-PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI ANIL KUMAR, THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI ARUN KUMAR, THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SRI SATYENDRA BHUSHAN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SRI AJIT KUMAR, THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ……………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 15 09.03.2010 I.A. No. 3252 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9938 of 2002, by which, an order of the then Secretary, Primary and Adult Education 3 Department, Bihar, Patna, communicated through memo no. 1512 dated 3.9.2002, has been sought to be challenged. Petitioners have contended in the I.A. that, after this Court stayed further proceedings pending before the said Secretary vide its order dated 2.9.2002, the said order was communicated through the said memo to the Secretary of the School and then only the said order came to their knowledge. Although operation of the said order has been stayed by the respondent Secretary through his memo no. 1665 dated 21.9.2002, but as the said order has been communicated to the Secretary of the School after the writ application was filed, the same is being sought to be challenged in this writ matter through the I.A. The I.A. is accordingly allowed. The dispute in these four cases is between the two sets of teachers and the Managing Committees with rival claims in respect of the original Millat Urdu Middle School in Phulwarisharif. Petitioners of the first two writ applications claim that the original School is in fact running at Mahatwana in Phulwarisharif which is recognized by the State Government and is getting aid; whereas 4 petitioner of the 3rd writ application claims that, by a valid resolution of the Managing Committee, the School was transferred to Chunautikuan in Phulwarisharif, with due information to the State Government. Petitioners of the first two writ applications challenged the said stand of the petitioner of the 3rd writ application, stating that in fact the said petitioner and other teachers, who are in support of the claim of the petitioner of the 3rd case, were dismissed from service and thereafter they established the School at Chunautikuan falsely claiming it to be the original School. Petitioner of the 3rd writ application disputes the said claim of the petitioners of the first two cases and claims that after shifting of the School to Chunautikuan, on the basis of valid resolution of the Managing Committee, with information to the Government, the School at Mahatwana has no existence in the eye of law. The abovementioned contempt application has been filed by petitioner no.1 of the second writ application, alleging violation of the orders of this Court passed in his writ application on 2.9.2002, stating that, after the interim order was passed by this Court, the then 5 Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna issued an ante-dated order contained in memo no. 1512 dated 3.9.2002, to the effect that the School at Chunautikuan was the genuine School, and entitled for grant by the State Government. The said order has also been subsequently challenged in the writ application by filing the said I.A. which has been allowed by this order earlier. Petitioners of the first two writ applications have also some grievance against the then Secretary of the Department personally, who had passed the orders communicated by the said memo dated 3.9.2002, on the ground that he had already applied his mind to the matter in different capacity and, therefore, he heard and decided the matter with premeditated mind. The records show that there has been several litigations in the matter between the two sides and there are several orders of different authorities as well as this Court in respect of the dispute which originally arose between the parties in 1983 after some teachers raised grievance against the Secretary of the School in respect of non-payment of their arrears of salary inspite of grant received from 6 the Government. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties to some extent, this Court is of the view that core issue between the parties cannot be decided conclusively on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and secondary evidence in the form of various orders of this Court and orders issued by the Department from time to time. Whether the petitioner of the 3rd writ application and the teachers on his side were, in fact, terminated from the services by the Managing Committee of the School and thereafter they established another School at Chunautikuan, or not, or whether the Managing Committee had actually resolved to shift the School from Mahatwana to Chunautikuan which was acknowledged by the Government, or not, are questions of fact which have to be necessarily decided after perusal of the original records of the School and original proceedings of the Managing Committee as also the orders issued or communication made between the School and the Department during the relevant period. This Court does not feel it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that, in writ jurisdiction, this Court should call upon the 7 original records and scrutinize the same itself for coming to a definite finding in respect of the above disputed facts. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter should be referred to the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department for a thorough and in- depth enquiry in respect of the disputed claims of the rival parties. After some initial hesitations learned counsels for either of the parties have agreed that this approach of the Court will be in the best interest of the parties and may possibly once for all settle the issue. In the circumstances, the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna is directed to hold a thorough and in-depth enquiry in respect of the rival claims of the parties. For this purpose, he shall call upon the rival parties to produce all the original records which are in their custody for scrutiny. He shall also call upon the original files of the Department and shall scrutinize the relevant orders and communications of the Department with either of the Managing Committee/School, made 8 during the relevant period, to find support in respect of the rival claims and then shall come to a final conclusion in respect of correctness of claim of either party. However, it is made clear that only those communications and orders of the Department shall be taken into consideration in the matter which find support from the original records of the School. It is also made clear that he shall not be bound or influenced by any order of this Court, any report of any authority, or any pleadings of the parties, made at any point of time before any authority or Court in respect of the dispute, without their being clear support to the same from the original records. While examining the original records produced by either of the parties, he shall also keep in mind to verify and satisfy himself with regard to validity, authenticity and genuineness of the records and action taken by the respective parties. It is emphasized that he will apply his independent mind, hold a thorough and in-depth enquiry and come to a definite finding in respect of the rival claims and shall pass a reasoned order with reference to each and every record which he relies upon for passing of the order. 9 For the purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department on 22nd of March, 2010 at 11.00 AM with a copy of this order. Thereafter, the parties will appear in the enquiry before the Principal Secretary on each and every date as he may fix and assist him till the conclusion of the enquiry. The enquiry must be completed by the Principal Secretary within four months from 22nd of March, 2010. This Court is informed that, at present, the petitioners of the first two writ applications and other teachers, i.e. those working in the School at Mahatwana are being paid their salary. Hence, it is directed that, in case the petitioners of the first two writ application i.e. the teachers of said School at Mahatwana, or their representative, default in their appearance before the Principal Secretary even on one date, the Principal Secretary shall be at liberty to stop the release of salary of all the teachers of the School at Mahatawana with immediate effect. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Principal Secretary shall pass orders in respect of release of grant to the 10 School which he may find to be genuine and original one. All the four cases are disposed of with the above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)