IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6462 of 2008 ACHARYA NAND KUMAR SHASTRI, S/O LATE NIHORA SINGH, EX ARMY-CUM-ASSISTANT TEACHER, SRI DANDI SWAMI PRIMARY-CUM-MIDDLE SANSKRIT SCHOOL, VYASTAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-IMIRITA, VIA-SURYAPURA, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 8. THE HEADMASTER, SRI DANDI SWAMI PRIMARY- CUM-MIDDLE SANSKRIT SCHOOL, KASTAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 02.08.2011 It appears from the list enclosed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner today that as many as names of 11 teachers and one non- teaching staff was forwarded by the Managing Committee of the School to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for approval. In the list the names of 6 teachers and one non-teaching staff were shown as already approved and working. The rest of the 5 teacher which included the petitioner also were shown as appointed in anticipation of up-gradation of the School and sanction of post. It is not disputed that the School has not been 2 up-graded till today and no further posts have been sanctioned there. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was shown as working in the School from before and the stand of the respondents was that no further posts were available in the School, two teachers have been appointed by the Managing Committee and their services have been approved by the Board through its letter dated 11.02.2004. It is also submitted that subsequently the In-charge Headmaster has died and, therefore, one more vacancy has become available in the School. Hence, the Board should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of his services and, he being senior most, should be appointed as In-charge Headmaster. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was informed verbally in the Board office that his name was not being considered only because there was no vacancy in the School. He submits that this was a false stand as two teachers were appointed by the Managing Committee subsequently and their services were approved by the Board, which shows that during all this period vacancies were in fact available in the School. Learned counsel for the Board submits that 3 unless and until the name of the petitioner is recommended by the Managing Committee against a clear vacancy the Board cannot consider his name for approval. There being no recommendation by the Managing Committee, the Board is therefore helpless in the matter. This Court finds the submission of learned counsel for the Board as correct. In a privately managed school its Managing Committee is the sole authority to make appointment and recommend for approval of the appointment. Though in the earlier chart the name of petitioner may have been shown as having been appointed against anticipated vacancy to be created upon up-gradation of the School, unless and until the Managing Committee recommended his name to the Board for approval against any existing vacancy the Board cannot consider the same. As per the chart itself it is clear that the petitioner’s engagement was only in anticipation of up-gradation of the School and consequential creation of post. Whether his case could be considered against any vacancy arising in the School subsequently on account of death of a teacher or otherwise is a matter solely within the domain of the Managing Committee to consider. From Annexure-7 dated 24.08.2006 it 4 appears that on a representation of the petitioner he has been duly informed by the Board that there is no vacancy in the School as two teachers had already been appointed and approved earlier by the Board. It has also been communicated that the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal in terms of Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Appellate Authority, but so far as a mandamus from this Court is concerned, petitioner is not entitled for the same. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)