DAYANANDMISRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -A privately established Sanskrit School had due recognition granted by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board under the provisions of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1991. The school in question was taken over and vested in the State of Bihar with effect from 18-12-1989 on coming into force of the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Ordinance 1989. The consequence of vesting was that the school was taken out of the purview of the Board Act and none of the provisions of this Act remained applicable to this school any longer. However on 18-12-1989, the date of take over, an appeal on a dispute relating to the post of Headmaster of the school was pending before the Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar (respondent No. 2) who was the officer appointed by the State Government to hear and dispose of the appeal preferred under Section 24 of the Board Act. What would be the fate of this appeal ? This is the short question that falls for consideration in this writ application. The question assumes importance as in the Take over Act there is neither a saving clause nor any provision dealing with the appeals pending under Section 24 of the board Act.

(2.) To put the point in its factual context it is to be state that petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 7 lay claim to the post of Headmaster of Josni Devi Primary-cum-Middle Sanskrit School, Saharsa ('the school for short). The school is said to have been established in 1977 and was granted recognition by the Board under the Board Act on 25-3-1980 One Daya Nand Mishra who had also joined in this application as petitioner No. 1 claimed to be the founder Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School. Petitioner No. 2 is said to have been appointed by the Managing Committee as an Assistant teacher on 21-2-1977 ; he joined the school on 27-2-1977.

(3.) There appears to have arisen, some time in 1983, a dispute between Daya Nand Milhra and one Din Bandhu Jha. When both of them claimed to be the lawful General Secretary of the Managing Committee. The fall out of this was another (subsidiary) dispute relating to the post of Headmaster of the school.