IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14253 of 2002 1. MD.SHARAFAT HUSSAIN son of S. K. Abdul Karim, resident of village- Mahila, P.O- Bishanpur, District- Banka. 2. Bibi Kharun Nusha wife of Md. Idris, resident of village- Chakanthu, P S.- Kahalgoan, District- Bhagalpur. 3. Md. Mursheed Son of Sk. Md. Ishaque, resident of village- Bishanpur, PO. Bhishanpur, PS. Dhoraiya, District- Banka. 4. Md. Nazeer Alam son of Sk. Jamiruddin, resident of village and PO. Chaknathu, District- Bhagalpur. 5. Md. Manzoor Alam son of Md. Hussain, resident of Sormamia, PO- Chaknathu, District- Bhagalpur. 6. Md. Idrish son of Md. Zamruddin, resident of village- & P.O. Chaknathu, District- Bhagalpur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-1. 2. The Special Director Secondary Education, Patna Old Secretariat, Patna-1. 3. The Chairman/Secretary Bihar State Madarsa Education, Board, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur. …Respondents. ----------- 6. 23.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Bihar State Madarsa Board, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed in this case rejecting the claim for payment of salary to the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Md. Manjur Alam & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 681 of 2002 disposed of on 25th January 2002. 2 From the impugned order, it would be also apparent that the Special Director, Secondary Education on being directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.4.1999 in CWJC No. 11758 of 1991 had also made conscious application to the facts and it was recorded therein that Madarsa Jameululoom Chakmathu in the District of Bhagalpur was originally approved by the State Government for imparting teaching only upto Wastania Standard and subsequently even when the institution had been upgraded for teaching upto Fauqania Standard the required government approval for the upgradation of the institution for teaching upto Fauqania standard was never given. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the case of Manjur Alam (Supra) would also squarely govern the result of this case as well inasmuch as the Apex Court having considered the scope and effect of the resolution of the State Government dated 8.12.1982 had laid down the law in the following terms:- “ There is no dispute that the aforesaid resolution of the State Government is prospective in nature, but that resolution unequivocally states that the State Government would bear the expenditure of teaching and non-teaching 3 staff of only those institutions which have already been recognized before this decision. Needless to mention that there is no document to show that after the upgradation of Madarsa, the Government at any point of time, has accorded approval to the said upgradation. In fact, the writ petitioners in the counter- affidavit filed, have taken the stand that question of further approval does not arise since the institution (Madarasa) was a recognized institution. We are afraid, this stand of the writ petitioners possibly is not correct. The Madarasas have not been recognized and/or approved as far as upgraded cases are concerned. The original staff recruited to the Madarsa will certainly get their salary etc. from the State Government and the State Government is bound to take the financial liability so far as they are concerned. But, on upgradation, for the additional staff untill and unless the State Government has accorded approval, question of burdening the State Government with financial liability does not arise. That is, in our view, the clear statement of the resolution dated 8.12.1982. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was in error in granting the relief prayed for. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners however has made an attempt to distinguish the case of petitioners by taking a plea that there is no requirement of prior government approval for upgradation of an existing 4 recognized and approved institution imparting education upto Wastania standard as on 31.12.1978. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to establish this aspect nor the same seems to have been raised even before the Special Director, Secondary Education. The said submission, in fact, would run counter to the provision of Bihar Board of Madarsa Education Act wherein under Section 7 gives power to the Board to give recognition to Madarsa only with prior approval of the State Government. The plea that till 1978 there was not such requirement for receiving government approval as the aforesaid Act itself was also not in existence, would necessarily lead to the consequences and effect of Section 26 of the Act wherein it has been provided that all recognized Madarsas prior to enactment shall be deemed to have been recognized under Ordinance until expiration of the period of recognition. Unfortunately, not a word has been said in the writ petition as with regard to the date of original recognition accorded to the Madarsa and the period for which such recognition was granted to it upto Wastania standard and the date on which such recognition was allegedly given for upgradatiion upto Fauqania standard. Thus, in absence of 5 disclosure of relevant material facts by the petitioners it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Director. That being so, this writ application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)