IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14822 of 2009 1. YOGIRAJ DEVRAHA BALDEO SINGH COLLEGE, BENIPURI NAGAR, TARAIYA, SARAN THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, NAMELY BIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM NATH SINGH VILL- RAMBAGH, TARAIYA, P.S. TARAIYA, DISTT. SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, HIGH SECONDARY BUDHA MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 4. CHAIRMAN BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA 5. SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, HIGHER SECONDARY, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 6. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, HIGHER SECONDARY, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 7. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SARAN, CHAPRA 8. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADHAURA-CUM-CONVENOR YOGIRAJ DEVRAHA BALDEO SINGH COLLEGE, BENIPUR NAGAR, TARAIYA, SARAN 9. BIRESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI YOGENDRA SINGH VILL- TIKAMPUR, P.S. TARAIYA, DISTT. SARAN with CWJC No.15008 of 2009 1. DR.BHAIRWA SINGH S/O SHRI RAM DAHIN SINGH R/OVILL BARKAGAON, P.S. PAKRIDAYAL, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI), AT PRESENT WORKING AS PRINCIPAL INCHARGE, SITARAM SINGH COLLEGE , BARKAGAON, EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 3. SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER PAKRIDAYAL , DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, HIGHER SECONDARY, PATNA , THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 5. CHAIRMAN , BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA 6. DIRECTOR , EDUCATION BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA 7. SHRI CHANDESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE GAJENDRA SINGH R/O RAMBAN, P.S. PAKRIDAYAL , DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ----------- 2. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board and learned counsel appearing on behalf 2 of the private respondent no. 9. The petitioner college claims to have authorized one Rajeshwar Prasad Singh as the Principal when respondent no. 9 claims to have been appointed as the Principal by the ad hoc governing body. The respondent Board has authorized respondent no. 9 to submit forms etc. of the students for appearing at the ensuing Intermediate/+2 examination, 2010 of the petitioner’s college. The college refused to acknowledge the legality of respondent no. 9 as its Principal. At the centre of the controversy are approximately 700 students scheduled to appear at the examination who do not seem to be the concerned of the respondent Board. The petitioner alleges that respondent no. 9 is an interloper while the latter claims his locus through the ad hoc committee. The orders of the Board whether it be in favour of the aforesaid Rajeshwar Prasad Singh dated 12.9.2008 or in favour of respondent no. 9 dated 13.10.2009 are non- speaking in nature. The latter does not deal with the former. Considering the fate of the 700 students involved, this Court is left far from satisfied with the conduct of the Bihar School Examination Board. This Court therefore directs (a) The Chairman of the Board is directed to ascertain if there is regular elected governing body in question existing, in accordance with law. 3 (b) If there is no elected governing body and the college is functioning through an ad hoc committee, the Chairman is directed to take all necessary steps to forthwith without delay initiate process for election so that a regular governing body is constituted without any delay. (c) In the nature of the controversy, if any forms are submitted either by the person whom the petitioner college claims to have appointed as Principal or by respondent no. 9, the Board shall be obliged to accept both the forms. This is considered necessary in the academic interest of the students. It shall then be the responsibility of the Chairman to verify each application whether submitted by the person whom the petitioner claimed to be eligible to do so or by respondent no. 9. The Chairman for his satisfaction may call for the necessary records from the college in question or the respondent no. 9 as the case may be. In the event that the Chairman has any doubts about an applicant or proposes to debar an applicant, the Chairman shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order with full material particulars placed before him, call for by him, not placed before him, disclosing full transparency in his order for the reason of his conclusion. Let this be done within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This shall take care of the interest of the students. 4 (d) The Chairman shall then give a personal hearing to the college in question and to respondent no. 9 with full opportunity to both to place before him in writing any materials that they may wish to rely upon with regard to the person entitled to be regular Principal of the college as distinct from any incharge Principal. The Chairman shall then be required to deal with all issues of facts and law raised by the parties before him and dispose the same by a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Chairman shall simultaneously be obliged to initiate a process for appointment of a regular Principal of the college which must be completed by the Chairman within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before him or at best to be computed from the date that the parties appeared before him. This Court holds that it is the statutory responsibility of the Board alone to ensure that a proper academic environment is maintained in the college in question in the interest of the students. The Board is not expected to act partisan, but strictly in accordance with law in the best academic interest of the institution. C.W.J.C. No. 15008 of 2009 In C.W.J.C. No. 15008 of 2009 the controversy is similar between the petitioner claiming to be the Principal 5 incharge and private respondent no. 7 disputing his claim. In this case also an ad hoc committee has been created by the Board for management. In this case also the Chairman shall proceed in similar manner as directed aforesaid in C.W.J.C. No. 14822 of 2009 and the present application is disposed off in like terms. The writ applications stand disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)