IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10683 of 2006 1.SANJAY KUMAR MADHUKAR, son of Sri D.N.Tripathy, resident of village Ghurhupur, post Hathilpur, P.S. & Block Brahampur, District Buxar. 2.Jitendra Trivedi, son of late Bishwanath Trivedi, resident of village Ghurhupur, Post Hathilpur, P.S. & Block Brahampur, District Buxar. 3.Awadesh Kumar Mishra, son of late Sukheo Mishra, resident of village P.O. Hathilpur, P.S. & Block Brahampur, District Buxar. 4.Sipahi Prasad, son of late Jagdeo Prasad, resident of village Ghurhupur, P.O. Hathilpur, P.S. & Block Brahampur, Dist. Buxar. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Secondary Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. 2.The Special Director (Secondary Education) Deptt. Of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The District Magistrate, Buxar. 4.The District Education Officer, Buxar. 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Brahampur, Buxar. 6.The Chariman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna. 7.The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 8.The Yadunath Ojha, son of not known to petitioners, Head master, Ram Brikasha Sanskrit Primary cum Middle School, Ghurhupur, P.O. Hatilpur, P.S. & Block Brahampur, District Buxar. 9.surendra Prasad Ojha, son of Sri Yadhu Nath Ojha, resident of village +Post NImaj P.S. & Block Brahmpur, District Buxar. 10.Saroj Singh, son of not known to the petitioners, working as Assistant Teacher in Ram Briksha Sanskrit Primary & Middle School, Ghurhupur, P.O. Hathilpur, P.S. & Block Brahmpur, District Buxar. ----------- 7 28/6/2010 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board as also the private respondents. Initially this writ petition was filed challenging the constitution of the Managing Committee but by I.A. No.4944 of 2007 the petitioners have assailed the appointment/promotion of 2 respondent no.9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Managing Committee which had made certain appointments including of respondent no.9 was itself functus officio and could not have make such appointments. In the opinion of this Court, appointment made in the private Sanskrit School only recognized by the Board for the purpose of holding examination is to be strictly governed by the statutory provision. Such appointment made by the private Managing Committee can be examined in the writ jurisdiction by this Court only if the authorities of the Board and the State Government have exercised their power under section 6 and 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, respectively. It has to be also noted that now under the aforementioned Act the power of control on the recognized school is vested in the Board and since the Government is funding payment of salary of the teaching and non teaching staffs of these private institutions, therefore, the Board has also duty to approve appointment made by the Managing Committee in terms of Section 6 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act also provides that any direction by the Board or its functionaries shall be appealable before the State Government which has authorised the Special Director, Secondary Education to function as the appellate authority. 3 In this case Mr. Roy however fairly concedes that the petitioner had directly moved this Court for assailing the order of approval passed by the Board in favour of respondent no.9. It thus becomes obvious that the petitioner has not availed the statutory alternative remedy as prescribed under the Act. That being so, this application so far it relates to challenging the appointment of respondent no.9 on any ground whatsoever including constitution of the Managing Committee can only be gone into by the appellate authority. In view of the fact that this writ petition has remained pending from 30.8.2006 if the petitioner files an appeal assailing the impugned orders, the competent authority, namely, the Special Director will consider the same on merits without insisting on the plea of limitation in filing of appeal. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)