IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1606 of 2009 Kalika Prasad Singh, S/o late Ram Udar Singh, presently posted as In-charge H.M. of Anand Sanskrit High School, Mirjapur, Raj Nagar, Madhubani, R/o Vill. Simri, P.S. Raj Nagar, Dist. Madhubani. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Dept., Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 2.2.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Shankar Das for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned assistant counsel to Additional Advocate General No.8 for respondent nos.1, 4, and 5, and Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh for respondent nos.2 and 3 (Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board). 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure-25), passed by respondent no.4, whereby the decision of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board cancelling the recognition of the school in question has been upheld. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 has supported the impugned action. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned 2 counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to be In-charge Headmaster of Anand Sanskrit High School, Mirjapur, Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. The recognition of said High School was cancelled by order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-10). The school in question is at serial no.45 of the order and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: 45& vkuUn la0 m0 fo|ky;, fetkZiqj jkeuxj, e/kqcuh Hkqfe laca/kh ’krZ iqjk ugh, Nk= mifLFkfr uxU;@ The State Government constituted a three-Member committee to enquire into the grievances of similarly circumstanced employees which submitted its report dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure-16 series). The report, inter alia, stated: mi;ZqDr foospu ,oa fu"d"kZ ds vkyksd esa ;g lqLi"V gS fd bu 86 fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk fujLr ugh ekuh x;h gS rFkk osru Hkqxrku dh ik=rk iq"V dh x;h gS fdUrq vkt 21ohz ’krh esa dyk ladk;ksa es Nk=ksa dh vfHk#fp de gksus ds dkj.k fcgkj esa 600 ls vf/kd laLd`r fo|ky;ksa ds vfLrRo dh vko’;drk izrhr ugh gks jgh gS@ vr% fo|ky;ksa dh izLohd`fr dh ’krksZa esa vkt la’kks/ku dh vko’;drk gS@ ljdkjh iz=kad 10@Hkq 3&02@2002 278 fn0 15&4&06 ds vkyksd esa laLd`r f’k{kk ds lqn`<+hdj.k ds fy, lq>ko Hkh ekaxs x;s gSa ftl ij i`Fkd izfrosnu fn;k tk;sxk@ blds vfrfjDr fuEufyf[kr vuq’ak’kk gS& + 3 4. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.15472 of 2007 (Kalika Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others), which was disposed of by order dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure-23), whereby respondent no.4 therein was directed to take a final decision with respect to the school in question in the light of the report of the three-Members committee. The Departmental Secretary considered the issue and has upheld the said order marked Annexure-10. It is relevant to state that the order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-10), has since been approved by the State Government by order dated 21.7.2008. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 placed before me a photo copy of the same during the course of submissions, and a copy whereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner also. 5. The State Government has in the Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, have issued notification No.793, dated 18.6.1999, fixing the yardstick for recognition of such institutions. The petitioner’s case was considered according to the yardstick and the Chairman of the Bihar 4 Sanskrit Shiksha Board had passed the aforesaid order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-10), whereby the recognition of the school in question has been cancelled on the ground that it does not fulfil the condition regarding ownership of the land and attendance of students was nil, and furthermore, the relevant portion of the report of the three-Members committee as reproduced hereinabove. In that view of the matter, it appears to me that the school in question falls far short of the minimum requirements, particularly attendance of the students. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/