IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11102 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar Thakur, son of Jagannath Thakur, resident of Chainpur, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Special Director Secondary Education (Sanskrit), Bihar, Patna 3. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Patna through its Chairman 4. Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna 5. District Education Officer, District Saharsa 6. Sharda Kant Jha, son of late Pholkant Jha, Village P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Bangaon, District Saharsa … Respondents --------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, AAGIV For the Board : Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, Adv. --------------------- 6. 20.12.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has assailed the appointment, approval and continuance of respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 despite service of notice has not appeared. From the records of this case and the file produced by Mr. A.P.Sinha, learned counsel for Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, it would appear that Sri Bhagirath Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Chainpur in the District Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the School’) is one amongst 429 Sanskrit schools which at one point of time were taken over by Ordinance No. 32/1989 by the State Government but subsequently on expiry of the Ordinance it had once again become a recognized Sanskrit school. The school is said to have seven sanctioned post of teachers out of which three have to be filled up with the persons having qualification of Acharya. It is said that one Umesh Kumar Jha was working as an Assistant Teacher against a post of Acharya teacher, inasmuch as he had also the requisite qualification of 2 being Acharya. The petitioner claims that Umesh Kumar Jha had resigned from the service of the school in the year 1996 whereafter it was he who got selected and appointed on the post of teacher. The petitioner claims to be M.A. in Sanskrit and thus qualified to be appointed as a teacher in a recognized Sanskrit High School. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was continuing in the school from 1997 respondent no.6 who is the son of Ex- Headmaster of the school had made a back door entry by initially being appointed against a Post of Graduate teacher in Primary unit which was never sanctioned by the State Government. Respondent no.6 subsequently is said to have absorbed on the post of Acharya teacher which had become vacant on account of resignation of Umesh Kumar Jha. The file produced by the Board contains a letter dated 19.2.2002 of the Headmaster of the school wherein respondent no.6 was informed that his services were adjusted on the post of approved Acharya teacher with effect from 1.1.2002 on account of resignation of Umesh Kumar Jha. The file of the Board goes to show that the vacancy on the post of Umesh Kumar Jha had taken place with effect from 1.1.2001 as was reported to the Board by the Adhoc Committee of the School. The petitioner, however, in the writ application has stated that the Board had approved the services of respondent no.6 with effect from 1.4.2004 against the vacancy caused on account of resignation of Umesh Kumar Jha with a condition that as and when Umesh Kumar Jha would object to approval of services of 3 respondent no.6, his (respondent no.6) approval shall automatically stand cancelled. Normally such a conditional order of approval of service is never passed by the Board and it was for this reason that this Court had called for the original file from which the impugned order dated 8.10.2004 had been issued. Such file would go to show that it was initiated on 4.10.2004 on receipt of the alleged letter of the Secretary of the School dated 19.8.2002. There is nothing to show as to where this letter alongwith its enclosure were kept in the office of the Board though one Jai Kumar an employee in the office of the Secretary to the Board had allegedly received it in the date of 28.8.2002. Such proposal sent by the Secretary of the Managing Committee to the Board, therefore, was surprisingly kept in Cold Storage and was not even docketed in the file from 28.8.2002 to 4.10.2004 and suddenly the entire decision was taken in one day on 4.10.2004 wherein the dealing Assistant had placed his note to the Accountant and the Accountant in turn had placed the matter to the Head Assistant, whereafter the Head Assistant had placed the matter to the Secretary to the Board and the Secretary to the Board on 8.10.2004 had place the matter before the Chairman of the Board for giving conditional approval, as noted above. There is also nothing to show that any application of mind was made by the authorities of the Board as with regard to procedure of appointment of respondent no.6, who as noted above had already been absorbed under the decision of the Managing Committee dated 19.2.2002. It thus becomes clear that the tailor made 4 advertisement was made on 30.6.2002 for filling up the post of Acharya teacher wherein surprisingly an alternative qualification of B.A. Sanskrit (Hons.) was also provided, whereas in the Rules framed by the State Government the post of Acharya teacher in Sanskrit school has to be filled up only by the persons having qualification of Achayra. The authorities of the Board even did not look into this aspect and had given conditional approval to the services of respondent no.6 against the post allegedly vacated by Umesh Kumar Jha, Assistant Teacher, who was working as an Acharya teacher and having also qualification of Acharya. Such perfunctory approval of service of respondent no.6 by itself would not inspire confidence. In fact that would not be the end of the matter, inasmuch as the District Education Officer, Saharsa, who has been vested with the power of drawing and disbursing Officer of recognized Sanskrit school, himself had reported to the Deputy Director of Secondary Education that there was great bungling in the appointment, approval and continuance of teachers of the school and in his detailed report dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure 13) he had pointed out that on one hand Umesh Kumar Jha is said to have resigned from the school in the year 1996 but payment of his salary was made for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.12.2001 and he had again surfaced by staking his claim for the post of Headmaster of the school in view of the letter of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education dated 13.3.2007. If the report of the District Education Officer, Saharsa is perused minutely it would pose a big question 5 mark as with regard to functioning of the school where only one room is available for teaching of the students upto Class X and seven teachers are said to be imparting education to 37 students reading in Classes I to X. Unfortunately on this detailed report of the District Education Officer, Saharsa no further action seems to have been taken Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned AAGIV, would explain and submit that the Government had found itself in a helpless situation because of the approval granted by the Board to the services of respondent no.6. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that when everyone in the school including Respondent no. 6 despite such an adverse report of the D.E.O., Saharsa is getting payment of their salary despite appearance of Umesh Kumar Jha with his claim of being the Headmaster of the School, there could be no reason for continuance of respondent no.6 as a teacher in the school inasmuch as his approval was also conditional. In the considered opinion of this Court the facts noted above would only go to show that no serious effort has been made by the Board in granting approval of service of respondent no.6, who as noted above could not have been appointed/ continued in service against the post of Umesh Kumar Jha whose resignation itself is a mysterious affair. In any event the entire procedure adopted by the Managing Committee firstly by way of absorbing the services of respondent no.6 in the month of February, 2002 and thereafter advertising the post of Umesh Kumar Jha and getting respondent no.6 selected and appointed 6 through a tailor made advertisement would by itself put a question mark on the entire procedure adopted by the Managing Committee of the school. The Board while giving approval of service of a teacher of recognized Sanskrit School, which in turn makes the Government to pay salary to such teachers, owes a duty to examine such cases of approval in a detailed and more transparent manner. As noted above, the file of the Board would only speak a volume as with regard to prevailing malpractice in the matter of approval of services of the teachers of recognized Sanskrit school. Considering all these aspects this Court would direct the present Secretary to the Board to hold a local inspection of the school and submit his detailed report to the Chairman of the Board. If it is found by the Secretary that Umesh Kumar Jha is already working as a Headmaster in the school, there would be no occasion either for continuance of the petitioner or respondent no.6 because both of them had claimed to be in service of the school on account of vacancy caused by Umesh Kumar Jha and the Chairman of the Board after supplying the copy of inspection report to the petitioner as well as to Respondent no. 6 as also giving them an opportunity of hearing pass his final order in accordance with law. The Secretary to the Board, therefore, will also indicate in his report as to who are the teachers of the school in question possessing the requisite qualification for approval of their service from the Board against the sanctioned post in terms of the staffing pattern of the State Government for such recognized Sanskrit High School. 7 It is also made clear that since the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Sanskrit and respondent no.6 is also having a degree of Sanskrit Hons., if there be any vacancy on the post of Graduate Teachers in the school, the Managing Committee may take a fresh decision for advertising that post wherein the petitioner as also respondent no.6 with other eligible candidates may have an opportunity to compete and get selected against that post. In view of what has been held above, the impugned order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the Secretary to the Board approving the services of respondent no.6 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Secretary and Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for doing the needful in terms of the directions and observations made above. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/