IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4972 of 2005 SHYAMA NAND SHARMA, SON OF LATE RATNESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUSMAHA, P.S. SHAHKUND, DISTRICT BANKA. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BANKA. 5. THE ACHARYA (HEADMASTER), MAYA RAMSWAROOP MADHYAKETTAR (INTER) SANSKRIT SHIKSHA SANSTHAN, BISHUNPUR, DISTRICT BANKA. 6. THE SECRETARY, MAYA RAMSWAROOP MADHYAKETTAR (INTER) SANSKRIT SHIKSHA SANSTHAN, BISHUNPUR, DISTRICT BANKA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate For respondent no. 2 :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For respondent no. 5 & 6 :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate ******** 5 25.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-6 by which he has been terminated from service vide order dated 15.4.1998 by the Managing Committee of Maya Ramswaroop Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya. For the same relief, the petitioner had filed CWJC No. 12095 of 1999. In the said writ application counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board stating therein that the 2 petitioner was no longer in service and was, therefore, not being paid his salary. The Court observed as follows: “It is well settled that an employee is entitled for salary when the relationship of master and servant exist. According to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5, such relationship has been snapped. So long the said order operates, the prayer made by the petitioner for payment of salary, cannot be granted.” It was deserved by the Court that the petitioner may assail the decision. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that his services were duly approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board on 19.7.1986 which was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he was not allowed to sign the attendance register from October, 1992. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was absent from the school regularly and thereafter the petitioner was given a notice to attend the school. Despite the notice he absented himself from the school, a second notice 3 was published in the newspaper on 27.11.1997 which was also ignored by the petitioner. All these facts would be apparent from the impugned order. Despite the notice in the newspaper to attend the school, the petitioner did not attend the school and as such the impugned order was issued on 15.4.1998. Under such circumstances, it cannot be argued by the petitioner that he was deliberately not being allowed to sign the attendance register. To say the least it is a weak defence. On behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, it is submitted and stated that the petitioner has moved this Court against the order of the Managing Committee which has issued vide Annexure-6. It is submitted that the writ application would not be maintainable against the Managing Committee. This aspect of the matter has now been settled in several decisions such as AIR 1976 SC 888 (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli Vs. Lakshmi Narain) followed by a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandra Nath 4 Thakur Vs. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors. reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 529. This writ application is dismissed on merits as well as the reason that the writ application is not maintainable. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)