Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.211 of 2012 ====================================================== Kiran Kumari W/O Sri Raja Ram Singh R/O Village- Dihra, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Sanskrit Shiksha Board Through Its Secretary Boring Canal Road, Patna 3. The Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram 5. The Managing Committee Ram Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bardihan, Post Office- Nasariganj, District- Rohtas, Through Its Secretary Block Education Officer, Nasiriganj, Rohtas 6. The President Ram Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bardihan, P.O.- Nasariganj, District- Rohtas cum District Education Officer, Rohtas 7. The Secretary Ram Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bardihan, P.O.- Nasariganj, District – Rohtas cum Block Education Officer, Nasiriganj, Rohtas 8. The Headmaster Ram Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bardiha, P.O.- Nasariganj, District- Rohtas .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav For the State : Mr. S.K.Ranjan & Mr. Vasant Vikas, AC to SC15 For respondents no. 5 to 8: Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur Mr. Shankar Kr. Thakur For the Board : Mr. Ram Niwas Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 6 01-07-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “Commanding upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary from April, 2008 as well as the current salary to the petitioner which has not been paid to her illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely though the petitioner is working as Assistant teacher of the school.”
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.211 of 2012 (6) dt.01-07-2013 2 As would be apparent from the aforementioned prayer
Legal Reasoning
and in fact has also been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the services of the petitioner was approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟) on permanent basis by an order dated 16.12.2004 and the petitioner was also paid his salary upto March, 2008, he could not have been denied such payment of salary only on the whims of the Managing Committee and its Principal which came into office in the year 2008. He has also referred to the letter of the Secretary to the Board dated 12.3.2010 wherein the Secretary to the Board had requested the Headmaster of Ram Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bardiha (hereinafter referred to as „the School‟) to make payment of salary of the petitioner for the period of her working. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even this communication of the Secretary to the Board did not bear any fruitful result. The present writ application thereafter has been filed only for the purpose of issuance of a direction to the respondents for payment of his arrears and current salary. On the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.8, the Headmaster, wherein a plea has been taken that the petitioner‟s appointment being itself illegal and in contravention of the Rules and procedure relating to Patna High Court CWJC No.211 of 2012 (6) dt.01-07-2013 3 appointment of the teachers in recognized non-Government Sanskrit schools, the same has been terminated by an order dated 12.12.2009 and the Managing Committee of the school had also taken a decision to send such information to the Secretary to the Board. The service condition of a teacher of a private recognized Sanskrit school either in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal is squarely in the hands of the Managing Committee. The payment of salary to such aided recognized schools, however, is made from the Government fund on the approval given by the Board. That will however not make the Board either the appointing authority or the authority competent to approve removal made by the appointing authority i.e. Managing Committee of the school. The Board, therefore, has very little role to play, inasmuch as the autonomy of recognized Sanskrit school cannot be taken away in the name of grant of aid to the teachers. In fact till date no service condition has been made for the teachers of recognized Non-Government private Sanskrit schools. Once this aspect would become clear there would be hardly any scope for this Court to issue a direction for payment of salary of the petitioner in view of the stand taken by respondent no.8, the Headmaster of the school that the petitioner is no longer Patna High Court CWJC No.211 of 2012 (6) dt.01-07-2013 4 continuing in service since 12.12.2009. None-the-less the Board can look into the aspect relating to removal of the petitioner from the school because its earlier order approving the services has vested a right in the petitioner to work and get salary. The Board, therefore, can only examine as to whether the alleged removal of the petitioner from the school under the decision of the Managing Committee was made after compliance of principles of natural justice. Such matter infact seems to be also pending before the Secretary to the Board as is apparent from the report submitted by the Headmaster of the school on 3.2.2012 vide Annexure „C‟ to the counter affidavit. Having regard to the aforementioned factual scenario this Court can only give direction to the Secretary to Sanskrit Shiksha Board to examine the matter relating to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and place the matter before the competent authority of the Board for taking a decision expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. It also goes without saying that since the approval of services of the petitioner was given under the order of the Chairman of the Board, the Secretary to the Board will place the matter before the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Patna High Court CWJC No.211 of 2012 (6) dt.01-07-2013 5 Board, if he feels necessity, may take up the matter in the meeting of the Board for taking a final decision. Any decision taken by the Board or its Chairman being appealable under section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act before the Special Director, the remedy for the petitioner or the aggrieved Managing Committee will be before such authority before either of them may rush to this Court with another writ petition. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this
Decision
application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-