IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16500 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR CHOUDHARY Son of Late Trilok Nath Choudhary, resident of village Vishnupur, PS Sakatpur, District Darbhanga …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar, 56-57 Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi -58 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56-57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi -110058 3. Sub-Registrar, Examination, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University) 56-57, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi -110058 4. The Chairman, Managing Committee, Jagdish Narayan Brahamcharyasharam, +2 Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Lagma, Rambhadrapur Lagma,Sakatpur, Darbhanga 5. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Jagdish Narayan Brahamcharyasharam, +2 Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Lagma, Rambhadrapur Lagma,Sakatpur, Darbhanga 6. Kewal Narayan Choudhary, Ex-Principal, son of Shyam Sundar Choudhary, resident of Village Lagma, Post Lagma, District Darbhanga ……Respondents ----------- 05- 24.3.2009 Heard Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. S N Pathak for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Prashant Kumar for respondent nos. 4 and 5, and Mr.Lalan Kumar for respondent no.6. The petitioner claims to be Principal of the respondent school (Jagdish Narain Brahamcharyashram + 2 Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Lagma, Darbhanga) and seeks a direction to respondent nos.1 to 3, to make available the examination forms to the petitioner and to authorize him to conduct the ensuing examination along with the declaration that he is the duly appointed Principal of the school, and for further direction to the respondents to restrain respondent no.6 to interfere with the affairs of the school. Respondent nos. 1 to 3, respondent nos.4 and 5, and respondent no.6, have filed counter affidavits. It is stated in the writ petition that the school has been registered as a co-operative - 2 - society under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act. It has been so constituted with the object of ensuring education in the traditional gurukul tradition, to preserve and spread Indian classical tradition and culture. Respondentno.6 was initially appointed as Principal of the school by order dated 24.3.86 (Annexure A), and was confirmed as such. His services were thereafter dispensed with by order dated 23.12.07 (Annexure 1), and the petitioner was appointed in his place. This was followed by order dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure 8), and another order dated 27.9.2008 (Anenxure 4), whereby the order of dismissal from service of respondent no.6 was recalled and he was reinstated in service. According to the writ petitioner, the school is affiliated to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, a body created by the Government of India, for spread of Sanskrit education in the country. After the said orders dated 27.9.2008 passed, respondent no. 6 has been trying to function as Principal of the school to the exclusion of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is manifest from the documents annexed to the counter affidavit of respondent no.6, he has been functioning on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. He next submits that his misdeeds had ultimately caught up with respondent no.6, and his services were dispensed with, whereafter the petitioner has been validly appointed and he has been functioning as such. Respondent no. 6 has thereafter again risen to his level of mischief and obtained letter of reinstatement. In that view of the - 3 - matter, it is submitted that respondent nos. 1 to 3 should issue the forms and other documents to the petitioner in the capacity of the validly appointed Principal to conduct the examination and other duties attached to the office. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the respondent school is `State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and has placed reliance on the following reported judgments :- (i) AIR 1981 SC 487 (Ajay Hasis vs.Khalid Mujib) (ii) AIR 1989 SC 1607 (Sri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S M V S J M S Trust vs. V R Rudani) (iii) 1992(1) BLJ 61 (A Upadhaya vs. M S E Association) (iv) 2007(3) PLJR 379 (Master Vedant Dhani Sinha vs State of Bihar) (It has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 808. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the respondent school is not ` State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He submits that respondent nos. 1 to 3 have no financial or administrative control over the school. He also submits that appointment or removal of Principal is entirely an internal affairs of the school, and respondent nos. 1 to 3 have no control over the same. 5. Respondent no.4 is the Chairman of the Managing Committee and has supported the petitioner. He submits that respondent no.6 was validly removed and has never been reinstated. He also submits that Annexures A to D to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 6 are forged and fabricated documents. - 4 - 6. Respondent no.6 submits that he was validly appointed, was erroneously removed, and has been validly reinstated in service. The petitioner was reinstated by Aamsabha at its meeting held on 27.9.2008. The writ petition is, therefore, fit to be dismissed. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It has first of all to be determined whether or not the school in question is State within the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A photocopy of the by-laws of the school has been placed before us during the course of submissions, extracts of which are already annexed to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner has not laid the requisite factual foundation in the writ petition to satisfy this Court that the respondent school is `State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. All sides have contested this issue on the basis of oral submissions. The bye- laws of the school too has been placed on record during the course of submissions. It appears that the school has been registered under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act. It further appears from clause -5 of the bye-laws that it entirely comprises of private individuals and there is no trace of governmental control. Clause 5 is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- ÞÞ5. izcU/kdkfj.kh lfefr dh lnL;rk dh izfdz;k laLFkk ds izcU/kdkfj.kh lfefr ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k 7 ¼lkr½ gksxh tks fuEukafdr izfdz;kvksa }kjk lfefr ds lnL; cusaxsA 5-1 fo|ky; ds laLFkkid Jh txnh”k ukjk;.k czg~epkjh th insu lnL; ;k mudh v{kerk esa pquko ls muds iz/kku f'k"; mRrjkf/kdkjh izfrfuf/k lnL;A 5-2 nku nkrk lnL;ksa esa ls nku nkrk lnL;ksa }kjk fuokZfpr izfrfuf/k ,d lnL;A - 5 - 5-3 U;kl ds lnL;ksa }kjk lackfpr U;kl ds izfrfu/k ,d lnL;A 5-4 fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid insu lnL;A 5-5 f'k{kdksa esa ls f'k{kdksa }kjk fuokZfpr izfrfuf/k ,d lnL;A 5-6 laLd`r fo|kuqjkxh rFkk laLd`r f'k{kk ls tqMs+ layXu ,d f'k{kkfon~ lnL; ftudk laokpu vke lHkk }kjk fd;k tk,xkAÞÞ It is queer that an allegedly public body like the present one would include a private individual as ex-officio member or his principal disciple as his successor member, another private individual. Indeed the entire body of bye-laws creates a strong impression that it is an entirely private body, in private hands, and is run by private individuals. There is not the slightest trace of governmental control – financial or administrative. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 is fit to be upheld. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. ( S K Katriar ) mrl