IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8741 OF 2007 PREM NATH SHARMA, S/O LATE JUGESHWAR SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE MAHNAR, WARD NO. 12 NEW P.O.+ P.S.MANHAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, SANSKRIT SHIKHSA BOARD, NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKHSA BOARD, GOBINDAYAN BHAWAN, BORING ROAD, PATNA. 5.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, VAISHALI. 6.THE HEADMASTER, SARDA SANSKRIT PRATHMIK SAH MADHYA VIDYALAYA MAHNAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 29.09.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction from this Court to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for according approval of the service of the petitioner on a sanctioned post in view of his appointment made by the Managing Committee of Sarda Sanskrit Prathmik-Sah-Madhya Vidyalaya, Mahnar, District-Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘School’) is unsustainable both on fact and in law. The reason for the same is quite 2 obvious, as is also apparent from the reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Headmaster of the School, respondent no. 6. The petitioner in the year 1983 on 17.6.1983 is said to have been appointed by the Managing Committee on honorary basis. In the said order of appointment, it was infact clearly mentioned that the payment of salary could be made to the petitioner only after sanction of post and approval of his service by the Board. There is however nothing on record to show that after 17.06.1983, any sanction of post held by the petitioner was made by the State Government on which his service could be approved by the Board. As a matter of fact, the Headmaster of the School in his counter affidavit has himself clarified that there are only six sanctioned posts and all of them remain occupied by the persons duly appointed by the Managing Committee and also having approval of their service by the Board. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that it is true that the petitioner was initially appointed in the School 3 against an unsanctioned post but then after the death of one Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, an approved teacher working against sanctioned post on 28.03.1996, one sanctioned post of teacher in the School in question became vacant and the Board therefore, was under an obligation to approve the service of the petitioner against the said vacant post. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no such proposal envisaged under the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act or Rules framed thereunder in which the Board can discharge the role of the Appointing Authority. The Appointing Authority in a recognized private Sanskrit School as in the case of the School in question, lies exclusively with the Managing Committee of the School and therefore, if the Managing Committee of the School after the death of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra could have advertised the post and the petitioner’s case could have been considered leading to his appointment and a resolution of the Managing Committee to this effect for his being approved against 4 the said post could have been passed and sent to the Board, only in that case the Board could have considered for according approval of service of the petitioner. In absence thereof, the Board does not owe any responsibility suo motu to consider the case of the petitioner, simply because at one point of time in the year 1983, he was appointed by the Managing Committee against an unsanctioned post. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner has also not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit to the categorical stand taken by the Headmaster of the school the uncontroverted position is that even this post of a teacher which had become vacant on account of the death of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra stands filled up by the Managing Committee and approved by the Board. Thus there would be no question for this Court to now direct the Board to consider the case of the petitioner for approval of his service against the aforesaid post of teacher which had become vacant after the death of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra in 1996 and has already been 5 filled up. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)