PARASNATH DIGAMBER JAIN HIGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (the Constitution), the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure 22, letter dated 5.1.1983 written by respondent No. 1 to the Regional Deputy Director of Education (the R.D.D.E.) by which respondent No. 1 informed the latter that as the Managing Committee of the School was not validly constituted, the Managing Committee of which Kapoor Chand was the secretary would continue till a new Managing Committee was constituted in terms of the constitution of the school and under Section 18(3)(a) of the Bihar Non-government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (1981 Act) within one year. Respondent No. 1 further informed that no approval be given to the order of the Managing Committee terminating the service of respondent No. 5.

(2.) On the 30th of April, 1965 a Managing Committee was constituted by the President Board of Secondary Education in exercise of his powers under Rule 39 of the Bihar High School (Constitution, Power and Function of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964 (the 1964 Rules) framed under the Bihar High School Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act). Kapoor Chand, also known as Kapoor Chand Jain, was nominated Secretary of that Managing Committee. This is contained in Annexure 1 corresponding to Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. On 12.7.1973 the school was recognized as a minority institution based on religion.

(3.) According to the petitioner thereafter a Managing Committee was constituted by the general members of the Digamber Jain community, the last Managing Committee constituted, according to the constitution of the School, was in the year 1982 of which Mahavir Prasad Jain was the Secretary. The school issued charge-sheet against respondent No. 5, the then Head Master, for various charges and he was directed to show-cause and an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. After giving him all reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the enquiry officer found respondent No. 5 guilty of the charge. The Managing Committee terminated his service. Having come to know that respondent No. 5 was manoeuvering to involve the officials of education department to interfere with the order on the ground that the Managing Committee was not validly constituted, the petitioner wrote repeatedly respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give opportunity to show that the Managing Committee was validly constituted. However, respondent No. 1 issued Annexure 22 by ignoring the requests of the Managing Committee. Respondent No. 4 Kapoor Chand, had resigned from the office of the Secretary some time in the year 1971 and five out of the ten members named in Annexure 1 were dead when Annexure 22 was issued.