IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5048 of 1991 DEVENDRA KR. & ORS. Versus STATE ----------- For Petitioner:- Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma 7 11.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board or any other respondents to oppose this writ application. The petitioners’ case is that they were appointed by the Managing Committee of Anirudha Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Navnagar, Babubarhi in the district of Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as the School). Apparently there is a dispute regarding the appointment of teachers in the aforesaid school. There were two sets of Managing Committee and the petitioners are claiming that they have been duly appointed by the properly constituted Managing Committee. Whereas respondents 5 to 8 are claiming that they were also duly appointed by a Managing Committee. The matter was heard by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and by order dated 6.10.1986 the Chairman held 2 that both the Committees have created the appointment register to show the name of their candidates as Assistant Teachers working in the school. By order dated 6.10.1986 the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board constituted an ad-hoc committee. The names of the members of the said committee are contained in annexure-4. An appeal was filed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee, under whom the petitioners are claiming their appointments, and ultimately vide order dated 11.4.1990 the appeal was allowed to the extent that annexure- 4 issued by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board constituting a Managing Committee was cancelled. The Managing Committee of Anirudha Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Navnagar, Babubarhi, district Madhubani filed a writ before this Court numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 4266 of 1990. The writ was filed against annexure-4 which is the order by which the Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board had constituted a Managing Committee. This Court allowed the writ petitioners to withdraw the writ application 3 under the believe that an enquiry was under consideration of the Board. It appears from the ordersheet that the order passed in the appeal in the year 1990 was not brought on record. This Court under the believe that there is an enquiry pending stayed annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact no enquiry is pending at all and the order contained in annexure-11 dated 11.4.1990 passed by the Special Secretary, Secondary Education has not been challenged before any authority or this Court. On the basis of these facts the petitioners contend that since the committee which has appointed the petitioners as a Teacher headed by Radha Kant Mishra was found to be valid committee by virtue of the fact that annexure-4 was quashed, their services as teachers should be regularized and they should be paid their salary. This Court cannot decide as to whether the petitioners should be paid their salary or whether they have been regularly appointed in the school in question. Therefore, I direct that the petitioners should 4 bring to the notice of the Special Director the order contained in annexure-3 dated 6.10.1986 the order contained in annexure-11 dated 11.4.1990 by filing a representation within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Special Director shall dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)