IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12887 of 2008 1 Janardan Prasad Singh, son of late Kamo Singh, resident of village and P O – Bihat Tola Jagir, P S – Barauni, District – Begusarai, at present Assistant Teacher in Dr Rajendra Bharti Sanskrit High School, Bihar, P O – Bihar, District – Begusarai 2 Usha Devi, daughter of Sri Sukdeo Pathak, resident of village – Pipra, P O – Dumari, P S and District – Begusarai, at present Assistant Reacher in Dr Rajendra Bharti Sanskrit High School, Bihar, P O – Bihar, District - Begusarai - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary/Commissioner, Prathmik, Madhyamik and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Department of Education, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3 The Additional Secretary, Prathmik, Madhyamik and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Department of Education, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4 The Special Director, Secondary Education-in-charge Sanskrit Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 5 The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, Boring Canal Road, Patna through its Secretary 6 The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, Boring Canal Road, Patna 7 The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, Boring Canal Road, Patna - Respondents ----------- 4 28.03.2011 The grievance of the two petitioners is simple. They have come to this Court for payment of their remuneration as Teachers in Private Government Aided Sanskrit Schools. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and a rejoinder thereto. State has also appeared. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. It is not in dispute that the two petitioners were appointed and, as required by law, approval of their appointments was sought for from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board approved their appointments vide Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 2 respectively in the year, 1982 and 1983 respectively. It appears that on 16.12.1989, the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Take Over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1989 was issued. This Ordinance took over the Management and the Staff of these non-Government Sanskrit Schools but, while doing so, it prescribed the take over of Teachers and the non-teaching staff primarily limited to 9 or in some cases 10 employees. This was known as Manak Mandal wherein, in ordinary Schools, there were 7 Teachers and 2 staff but in Science Schools, there were 8 teachers ad 2 Staff. This number could increase depending upon the students’ strength. These Teachers and staff were to be paid their remuneration at Government rates. This Ordinance lapsed on 01.05.1982 without being converted into an act. This created serious problems as to the status of the Teachers and the staff. There were several litigations. At one time what the Government did, it cancelled all sanctions to the post of teaching and non-teaching given in excess of the Manak Mandal retrospectively. The effect was that all persons, who were employed either as Teachers or Staff on duly sanctioned post with approval of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board became persons non grata having no identity left. Recently, this Court in Division Bench decision dated 08.04.2010, in the case of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board –Versu- State of Bihar and others (LPA No 656 of 2010), has held that such letters of the year, 1995 were dead letters. This was apparently so because State wanted to wash its hands of the employees in excess of the Manak Mandal. Keeping this in mind, let us examine what is the letter of the State Government dated 21.12.1995 appended as Annexure-7 because it is 3 on basis of this letter that by Annexure-8, inter alia, petitioners’ services have been terminated. A reference to this letter, as contained in Memo No 1056 dated 21.12.1995, would show it is in identical terms to the letter that was considered by the Division Bench and held to be dead letter. The only object of that letter was even the Ordinance had lapsed several years back and had not disturbed people who were beyond the Manak Mandal, this letter not only disturbs them but uproots them. This letter, being a dead letter, cannot be now used by the State as is done by Annexure-8 to the writ petition to suo motu ex parte declare the appointment of large number of Teachers in different Schools to be bad. The whole exercise, if one reads both Annexures-7 and 8 together, is only to get rid of, on some pretext or the other, the Teachers in excess of the Manak Mandal. By Annexure-7, the sanction to the post is cancelled and by Annexure-8, it is held that the appointments now become appointments on non-sanctioned post and, as such, they are all cancelled. Thus, being based on a dead letter, this cancellation of petitioners’ appointment cannot be sustained apart from gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is not denied that the Sanskrit Shiksha Board has granted petitioners’ appointment approval. As is usual, a foul attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Sanskrit Shiksha Board to submit that their appointments were illegal and ought not to have been approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Such challenge cannot be permitted. Sanskrit Shiksha Board has itself granted approval and now, on a wrong pretence, State having cancelled the appointment, Sanskrit Shiksha Board cannot take somersault in the matter and challenge its action. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a detailed judgment delivered by this Court in CWJC No 216 of 1998 and analogous cases being judgment dated 16th September, 2010 which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the rejoinder. In that judgment, this Court has considered in detail the pre-Ordinance situation, the situation, as emanating during the period Ordinance aforesaid was in operation and the post-Ordinance period. This Court clearly held following other judgments that all employees, teaching or non-teaching, who were appointed on sanctioned post even prior to and in excess of the Manak Mandal continued in service and would all along be entitled to their remuneration as teaching staff or other staff under grant-in-aid. The only distinction would be in respect of Teachers and Staff falling within the Manak Mandal. For the period of Ordinance, they would be entitled to remuneration at Government rates but that would revert to grant-in-aid after lapse of Ordinance. The said judgment has also considered letters/circulars similar to Annexure-7 and has held them to be dead letters and performed its last rites. Following the aforesaid, I have no option but to allow the writ petition, set aside Annexure-8 in so far as petitioners are concerned, direct the Sanskrit Shiksha Board to ensure payment of full remuneration in accordance with law to the petitioners. The payment would be made within three months from today. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)