IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10313 of 1998 Braj Bhushan Pandey, son of late Hira Pandey, resident of Village Jaitipur, P.O. Telahara, P.S. Telahara (Ekangersarai), Dist. Nalanda. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Special Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 8. The Chairman, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 9. The Secretary, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna 10. The Headmaste, Sri Biswa Bandhu Sanskrit High School, Telhara, P.O. Telhara, P.S. Telhara, Begusarai, Dist. Nalanda. 11. Mahesh Pandey, son of Sri Rajendra Pandey, resident of Village Choti Murhari, P.S. Harnaut, Dist. Nalanda. ---------- Respondents ----------- 7 23.08.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that by the impugned order, the Special Director, in terms of Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), had allowed the appeal of the respondent no.11 with a consequential direction for payment of his salary and that he has also held the appointment of the petitioner illegal, this Court could have gone into the issue, had the situation been not changed. Admittedly, the whole dispute 2 between the petitioner and the respondent no.11 had arisen at a point of time when the ordinance no.32 of 1989 was promulgated by the State of Bihar with a concept of taking over 429 old recognized schools but, then, as is now well known that after the successive ordinances, the State Government did not take over these schools and the life of the ordinance expired on 30.4.1992, whereafter, all the schools including the school of the petitioner once again have become non- government recognized Sanskrit school, wherein, payment of salary is being made from the fund given by the State Government. Thus, if the petitioner was also getting the payment of salary prior to 18.12.1989 on account of recognition of his service by the Board against the sanctioned post, neither the appointment nor the continuation of the respondent no.11 can now affect his service specially when the Managing Committee has not protested the appointment/approval of the service of the petitioner in the school, in question, in the last 29 to 30 years. It has to be kept in mind that the Board itself had approved the services of the petitioner by an order dated 3 12.9.1982 on the basis of which the petitioner continued to get the salary till the date the school had been taken over by the State Government temporarily on 18.12.1989. In that view of the matter, this Court would remit the matter back to the Chairman of the Board, who would now examine as to whether prior to 18.12.1989, there were nine sanctioned post of Teachers on which the petitioner and respondent no.11 were being paid their salary after approval of service as would appear from Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 to the writ application. If the Chairman of the Board would find that both the petitioner and the respondent no.11 were drawing their payment of salary prior to 18.12.1989, he would continue with the services of the petitioner and the respondent no.11, inasmuch as, the number of post curtailed by the ordinance would no longer remain in existence after the life of the ordinance itself over on 30.4.1992. In that view of the matter, the last sentence of the impugned order, reading as follows:- ^^bUgs osrukfn dk Hkqxrku cksMZ nokjk fd;k tk;sxk rFkk izfroknh dh 4 fu;qfDr fof/kor ugha gksus ds dkj.k vH;kosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** is hereby set aside. The Chairman of the Board will decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing both to the Managing Committee of the schools as also to the respondent no.11. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)