IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5232 of 2005 MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI BHAGIRATH MADHYAMIK SANSKRIT VIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RADHESHYAM MISHRA ALIAS RADHA KANT MISHRA ALIAS LAL MISHRA, SON OF LATE KUKHMOCHAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAINPUR, P.S. BANGAON, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA. 4. SHRI SUNDAR KANT THAKUR, SON OF LATE INDRA NARAYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAINPUR, P.S. BANGAON, DISTRICT SAHARSA, AT PRESENT SECRETARY OF NEWLY MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SRI BHAGIRATH PRIMARY-CUM-SECONDARY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, CHAINPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 6. THE BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, PATNA, DISTRICT PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. 15 For the Board : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate, B.S.S.B. For Res. No. 4 : Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate ----------- 4 17.1.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order contained in Annexure-4 by which the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna has appointed a Managing Committee for Sri Bhagirath Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya. It is apparent that the Board had earlier also constituted a Managing Committee which was challenged in this Court and ultimately this Court by order dated 29.1.1999, passed in L.P.A. Nos. 123, 124 2 and 127 of 1988 reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 529 had held that the Board did not have any authority to make appointment of the Managing Committee unless it was in public interest. It was held that Sections 13, 14, 21 and 22 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Education Board Act, 1981 gives the Board only an administrative control over the affairs of the Sanskrit Schools as required for implementation of the different schemes of the State Government. By Annexure-4, appointments have been made of Members of the Committee excluding the name of the Donor Member. It is not in dispute that the Donor Member ought to be made a Member of the Managing Committee and on the face of it, it would appear that the Committee constituted by Annexure-4 was incorrect. It is also apparent that earlier there was a Managing Committee before the take over of the school under the 1989 ordinance. The ordinance has expired and the Sanskrit Schools have been restored to their original position wherein the schools are managed and administered by the Managing Committees whereas the State 3 Government grants aid to the schools for payment of teachers and also has administrative control to some extent over the Sanskrit Schools. The present position is that, according to the counsel for the respondent no. 4, the life of the Committee has expired. However, it is also apparent that by the judgment in the case of Chandranath Thakur, the Board did not have the authority to constitute a fresh Committee by removing members of already existing Committee. I, therefore, find that Annexure-4 was wrongly issued under wrong assumption of the legal position and powers of the Board. Since the life of the Committee has expired, the obvious conclusion would be that the Committee that was earlier constituted would be no longer in existence. Obviously the school cannot function without a Managing Committee, therefore, it would be necessary to take steps to constitute a Managing Committee in accordance with law and the judgments of this Court which have treated the schools to be private schools run by the Managing Committee by the Government. 4 This wit application is disposed of. It would be advisable that the Committee should be constituted within a period of four months on receipt of a copy of this order. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)