IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) C.W.J.C. No. 13727 of 2002 Anil Kumar Sinha, son of late Nathuni Prasad, resident of Village Ganga Bigha, Telhara, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, Distt. Nalanda, at present posted as Assistant Teacher in Sri Jagdamba Sanskrit High School, Akbarpur, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, Distt. Nalanda. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Special Director (Secondary) Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 7. The District Education Officer, Distt. Nalanda at Biharsharif. 8. The Block Development Officer, Hilsa at Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda. 9. The Headmaster, Sri Jagdamba Sanskrit High School, Akbarpur, P.S. Habibpur, P.S. Hilsa, Dist. Nalanda. 10. Sri Girish Kumar, Son of Sri Suresh Prasad, Resident of Village Akbarpur, P.O. Habibpur, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, Distt. Nalanda. ---------- Respondents ----------- 4 29.6.2011 Today, this case has been notified under the heading “For Admission”. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner’s challenge to the original order of the Board dated 1.7.1999 and the appellate order of the Special Director of the Board dated 27.6.2002 as contained in annexure-2 & 1 respectively to this writ application, is based primarily on the ground that the petitioner was always senior to the respondent no.10 either in the 2 matter of entry in service in the concerned Sanskrit school or on the basis of recommendation of his service by the competent authority, namely, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. From perusal of the records particularly the impugned order itself, it is clear that the school, in question, is a recognized Sanskrit school, wherein, the high school (Madhyamik) unit was recognized by the Government and payment of salary was being made to the teachers of Madhyamik unit under the prescribed Staffing Pattern of the State Government against eight sanctioned posts including that of Science Teacher. The respondent no.10 is said to have been working against the post in the primary unit and subsequently when the one post of teacher in the High school unit became vacant, he was absorbed against such post under the decision of the competent authority, namely, the Managing Committee of the school. Such action on the part of the Managing Committee was again subjected to scrutiny by the Board, which had accorded approval in the case of the respondent no.10 on 22.1.1988. At this place it would be also relevant 3 to note the facts of the case of the petitioner who is said to be appointed by the Managing Committee on 31.2.1985 and his services were also approved by the Board vide letter no. 995 dated 22.1.1988 by way of a temporary measure and on a specific condition that the payment of salary to the petitioner could be made only if the post would be sanctioned by the State Government. These two documents relating to appointment and approval of service of the petitioner have been seriously doubted by the authority, on the ground of there being no possibility of the appointment of the petitioner being made in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 31.2.1985, inasmuch as, in the month of February, there would not be 31 days. Thus, the very resolution of the appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee has been found to be wholly doubtful and has also not been supported by production any authentic document to this effect by the petitioner in his writ application. The authorities have also found that the Board’s alleged office order no.995 dated 22.1.1988 is again a forged document, inasmuch as, the Chairman of the Board in his order has held that never in 4 the history of the Board, in the month of January, office order with serial no.900 and above have been issued. It is also not in doubt that the school, in question, is one of the 429 Sanskrit schools which were taken over by an ordinance dated 18.12.1989 and having continued as a Government school for a period of nearly two and half years i.e. up to 30.4.1992, they had again been reverted back as private Sanskrit schools when the life of last ordinance had expired on 30.4.1992. The petitioner was never paid salary in this school whereas the respondent no.10 had been receiving payment of salary right from the year 1988 pursuant to his approval by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and as such the claim for payment of salary of such teachers stands concluded in the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra and Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994(2) PLJR 359, wherein it was held as follows:- "There is absolutely no justification for non-release of the salary of the teachers who had been getting the same, in view of the fact that even according to the State of Bihar they were entitled to the payment of salary in the same manner which was being paid to them when the Ordinance 32 of 1989 did not come into force." 5 In such a situation, the effort of the petitioner to dig out the so-called illegality in the appointment of the respondent no.10 by questioning the same before the Board in the year 1999 and its resultant appeal is not only delayed but also based on surmises and conjectures. Actually, the petitioner has a grievance against the action of Managing Committee of a private Sanskrit School and if that be so, the petitioner can only establish his case either with regard to his own appointment being made by the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 31.2.1985 to be correct or the order of approval of the Board to be authentic in a properly constituted suit in a civil court. Question of forgery, fraud and fake document even otherwise cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being sol, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing said in this order or the impugned orders will come in the way of the petitioner 6 if he would file a civil suit before competent civil court seeking declaration of his appointment as a valid appointment in the eye of law. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)