IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.12992 OF 2007 BHUP NARAYAN MISHRA, S/O LATE DEO KANT MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE RAHIMPUR RUDAULI, P.O. BIKRAMPUR BANDE, P.S SAMASTIPUR MUFASSIL, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT POSTED AS SCIENCE TEACHER IN RAMESHWAR BHAWAN, SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDYALAYA, HARIPUR DIHTOL, P.S KALUAHI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, (SECONDARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3.THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION (SANSKRIT)GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4.BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 5.THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION CUM CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. 6.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. 7.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, RAMESHWAR BHAWAN SANSKRIT UCHCHAVIDYALAYA, HARIPUR, DIHTOL, P.S KALUAHI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SRI YOGNATH MISHRA, S/O LATE NILAMBER MISHRA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 30.09.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Assailing the correctness of the order contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure- 2, Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the school in question is one covered by the group of 429 Sanskrit Schools and the petitioner admittedly was at one point 2 of time working in the school in question. He would suggest that if therefore, the Managing Committee of the school had allegedly terminated the services of the petitioner, there must have been an order of termination but the same has never been produced by the Managing Committee as would be manifest from the order of the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as contained in Annexure-1. He would further submit that as a matter of fact the petitioner was entitled to continue on the post of science teacher, inasmuch as, that is the school in question, the post of science teacher was duly created and therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Special Director Sanskrit Education to hold that the post of science teacher of the school in question also got abolished on account of promulgation of ordinance 32 of 1989. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that when the Managing Committee had tried to put another teacher for eclipsing or frustrating the claim of the petitioner, the said effort was thwarted by the petitioner by moving 3 the appropriate authority and therefore, if till the year 1998, the petitioner’s effort was never registered by anyone by making the claim of the petitioner to have been terminated, it must be presumed that the story of so called termination of the petitioner is a figment of imagination or an incorrect impression created by the Headmaster of the School because the Secretary of the School has all along been of the view that the services of the petitioner was never terminated. In the considered opinion of this Court all these questions therefore, would lead to determination of the fact as to whether the petitioner’s service was terminated by the Managing Committee in a prescribed manner. No doubt that the Managing Committee is the Appointing Authority but it has to follow the procedure of removal as laid down in the 1976 rules. It is here that the order of termination of service of the petitioner by the Chairman of the Board becomes vulnerable, inasmuch as, he had not seen the order of termination and had merely 4 relied on the statement of the Headmaster of the School. The Headmaster of the school in question was not the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and therefore, any impression created by the Headmaster should have been safely avoided. Be that as it may, these aspects can be still gone into by the Special Director of the Government of Bihar who under Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act has been vested power to hear appeal against the order passed by the Chairman of the Board/Board. The other aspect which this Court has noticed in the impugned order contained Annexure-2, is the defiant approach of the Special Director who in the year 2002 had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not covered by the staffing pattern as per the ordinance. The ordinance 32 of 1989 and its replacement ordinance had lost its life on 01.05.1992 and therefore, any staffing pattern prescribed under the ordinance had also become a dead letter. This aspect of the matter has been clarified in a number of 5 judgments passed by this Court but the Authorities are still deciding the issue as if the effect of the ordinance was still continuing. In that view of the matter, this Court must hold that Annexure-2 is wholly unsustainable both on facts and/or in law and is, accordingly, quashed. As noted above the petitioner will have the remedy of appeal against the order contained in Annexure-1. The period of filing of an appeal is only 60 days but then keeping in view that this writ application was filed on 01.10.2007 against the order of the Chairman dated 30.08.2007, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period 60 days from today and in the event such an appeal is filed before the Special Director Sanskrit, the same shall be disposed of on merits after hearing all the parties including the Managing Committee which must be properly represented by its Secretary or any of his authorized representative. As the petitioner’s grievance has remained pending for a long time, this 6 Court would direct the Special Director Sanskrit Education to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the appeal. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)