IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9420 of 2002 1.SADRUL HODA son of Abdur Rahman 2.Rai Ahmad son of late Rafequal Hussain 3.Ali Musa son of Late Md. Jamal 4.Noorul Hoda son of late Abdul Majid 5.Ataur Rahman son of Late Ameer All residents of village Mansara, Police Station Jamalpur, District Darbhanga. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna through its Secretary. 4.Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 5.Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 6.District Education Officer, Darbhanga, 7.Md. Fazlur Rahman son of Late Abdul Wahid, Resident of Begrasi, P.O. Kothram, District Darbhanga. 8.Md. Manzoor Alam son of late Md. Hanif, Resident of village Mansara, P.O. Kathram, District Darbhanga,. 9.Mahboob Alam son of late Md. Hanif, Resident of village Mansara, P.O. Kothram, District Darbhanga. 10.Md. Sharif son of Sk. Chaudhary, Resident of Mansara, P.O. Kothram, District Darbhanga,. 11.Lal Mohammad sonof Mahboob Alam, Resident of village Mansara, P.O. KOthram, District Darbhanga. ----------- 3 21/6/2010 No one appears for the petitioners. The matter relating to approval of service of respondent no.11 by Bihar State Madarsa Education Board hereinafter referred to as the Board has been decided by the Special Director of Secondary Education, who in the impugned order has held that the appellant Sadrul Hoda had no locus standi to assail the order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Board. From the reading of the writ petition it would be clear that it is basically a dispute arising out of a decision taken by private Managing Committee appointing Respondent no. 11, whole services were approved by the Board and affirmed by the 2 Special Director of the State Government. Therefore, if the petitioner was so much sanguine the remedy for him against the such decision of the private Managing Committee and/or its approval and affirmance by the Board as well as the State Government was only before the competent Civil Court. This Court infact would also approve the reasonings in the appellate order of the special director, wherein he has held the petitioner in capacity of head Maulvi (headmaster) of Madarsa had no locus standi to assail the appointment of Respondent no. 11 on the post of teacher in Madarsa or its approval by the Board. Such findings recorded by the special director are not only findings of fact but also have no legal infirmity inasmuch as it has been rightly held that:- "From perusal of comprehensive proceeding dated 2.11.2001 as contained Annexure-E to the rejoinder it is evident that the managing committee appointed Lal Mohammad respondent no. 12 on the post of Alim teacher in that very Madarsa following norms and procedure. However I discuss on the point of maintainability of this appeal, which was raised by the respondents. A person or the managing committee aggrieved by the order of the Madarsa Board or its Chairman may file appeal before the competent authority as provided in Section 28 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act 1981. The appellant who is Head Maulvi of that very Madarsa has main grievance that the appointment of Lal Mohammad was not made by the managing committee, since no meeting of the committee was held for making appointment and the applicants were not informed about the changed date of interview. As result of which the appellants agitated against the above said appointment 3 before him. The main question arises before me that why any candidate did not file appeal ? The applicant who was not informed about the date of interview or was deprived to appear in the interview is actually aggrieved person. But the Head Maulvi of that very Madarsa is neither aggrieved person, nor his right or claim was effected by the decision of the managing committee. No such candidate who agitated before the appellant against the appointment as stated by the appellant, filed appeal against the approval order dated 13.12.2001 which makes it clear that the applicants/candidates have no grievance against the appointment of Lal Mohammad. It is not beyond expectation that the appellant filed this appeal in his own interest. In my view the appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal as discussed herein above. In such circumstances the appeal is not maintainable. Therefore the order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Chairman of the Board and issued under letter no. 3367-70 is able to be sustained. Lal Mohammad respondent no. 12 who was appointed on the post of Alim Teacher in that very Madarsa by the managing committee is entitled to get his salary from the date of his joining." That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)