RAMADHAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be the Headmaster of Ramanujiya Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nawahi Math (Jhula Bhawan), Nawahi, PS Sursand, District Sitamarhi. Respondent No. 8, Sachidanand Mishra is the Headmaster of Ramanujiya Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nawahi, District Sitamarhi. The real dispute which is subject matter of this writ petition, is which of the two schools is the recognised school by Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University and later by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. The dispute has a chequered history which is evident from judgment and order dated 27.4.1998 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. By that judgment contained in Annexure -12 two writ petitions, one of the year 1988 filed by respondent no 8 and another, and other of the year 1994 filed by the petitioner and others, were allowed. The order dated 27.5.1988 (Annexure -9) of the Vice -Chancellor of the University which was against respondent no. 8 and the order dated 16.3.1994 (Annexure -10) of the State Government in favour of respondent no. 8 were quashed and the State Government was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order after affording the parties proper opportunity of leading evidence and hearing, within a time frame.

(2.) PURSUANT to the Division Bench judgment dated 27.4.1998, the State Government got an enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, respondent no. 7 who submitted his report dated 9.11.2000 (Annexure -1) to the Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna. Petitioner has challenged the said report contained in Annexure -1 which is against his claim and which is in favour of claim of respondent no. 8. A consequential order of the State Government communicated through letter dated 31.3.2001 by the Special Director to the Chairman and Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has also been brought on record through an amendment petition contained in I.A. No. 1393 of 2005 and has been assailed by the petitioner as a wrong order based upon wrong report of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure -1.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner learned counsel made a further attempt to persuade this Court to look into various reports and documents and hold that in fact petitioners school is the real school entitled for benefits of recognised school. Lastly, it was submitted that a successor District Magistrate of Sitamarhi has filed a counter affidavit in this case in which he has opposed the claim of the petitioner but has further stated that on 23.1.2001 the District Magistrate alongwith the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi made enquiries from local public to find out which of the two schools is genuine and in that enquiry the local public allegedly stated before the District Magistrate that these schools are not running on the spot. They have no existence and they are oniy on paper. A report to this effect by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi dated 31.1.2001 has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of alternative submission relied upon the said report to submit that since subsequently on 31.1.2001 the District Magistrate has given his conclusion that both the schools have no existence on ground hence even if the claim of the petitioner is not accepted, the State Government through the Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar be directed to ensure that no grants by the State Government or by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board be made available to the school of respondent no. 8.