DEO KRISHNA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the directions of the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the Secretary of the Board by the letter dated 9th November, 1989, while dissolved the Managing Committee of Deo Narayan Mithila Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Sabha Sasaula, Sitamarhi, appointed the appellant as the Secretary and one Chandradeo Mishra as the Chairman respectively of the ad hoc Managing Committee of the said school so constituted alongwith three other persons as its members. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was contested only by the appellant. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Chairman of the Board had no power to constitute ad hoc Committee and te dissolve Managing Committee of a Sanskrit Vidyalaya on the strength of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, reported in, 1991 (1) PLJR 529.

(2.) IN the present appeal, amongst others, it is the contention of the appellant that in terms of sub -section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, the Chairman of the Board has power to discharge the duties and functions of the Board when the Board is not in session. The fact that the Board was not in session on 9th November, 1989 has not been reflected in the order dated 9th November, 1989, impugned in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 7, he did not say so. In the present appeal too, he has not said so.

(3.) THE other point that was taken by the appellant to contest the writ petition was that the self -same order was the subject matter of two other previous writ petitions and since the previous two writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, the present writ petition is barred by res judicata. The fact remains that when the first writ petition was filed challenging the said order dated 9th November, 1989, the school in question was taken over and accordingly in such a situation the school could not be managed either by its Managing Committee or by an appointed ad hoc Managing Committee. In such situation, the first writ petition was declared infructuous. The second writ petition was also declared infructuous for the self -same reason. The fact remains that though twice temporarily the school had been taken over, but ultimately the same had not been taken over. Unfortunately for the members of the Managing Committee, whenever their writ petitions were taken up for consideration in the first two rounds of litigations, the school had been taken over. In the circumstances, the orders passed in the first two writ petitions, in the matter of deciding the merits of the third writ petition, did not stand as res judicata.