IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3075 of 2004 Bishwanath Singh, son of late Ganesh Singh, resident of Village Parshurampur, P.S. Palanwa Naka Raxaul, District East Champaran, presently working as Assistant Teacher in Baidyanath Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bhelahi, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Chairman, Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Bihar, Patna. 3. Headmaster, Baidyanath Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya Bhelahi, P.S. Raxaul, P.O. Raxaul, District East Champaran. ------ Respondents ----------- 5 8.11.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board is present and has informed this Court that the services of the petitioner was never approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) so as to vest him with a right to claim payment of salary from the Government fund as prayed in this writ application. This Court would find that the petitioner had earlier moved the Civil Court seeking a declaration with regard to validity of his appointment and continuation in the service of the school by impleading only the Managing Committee of the School and though such suit was decreed but in absence of 2 either the Board or the State Govt. being from the party to the suit the same cannot bind them to make payment of salary to the petitioner. The said decree being executable against the managing committee of the school, which is not a State within the meaning of the State under Article 12, no direction can be issued under Article 226 to such private body for making payment of salary to the petitioner. Such direction could have been issued to the Board only if the services of the petitioner were approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Additionally, this Court would find that the scope of civil suit and its appeal in seeking remedy in relation to payment of salary from the State Government being not the part of such decree of the civil court, the petitioner cannot claim payment of salary even on the basis of such decree of the civil court. In any event, if the petitioner has any grievance for payment of salary against his parent employer i.e. the Managing Committee of a private recognized Sanskrit 3 School, the remedy for him cannot be a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the said Managing Committee is not the ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)