RARNESHWAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are directed against the order dated 26.9.1988 of the respondent no. 2, the Special Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna, allowing the appeal of respondents 5 -11.

(2.) THE case of Rameshwar Jha, petitioner in the first writ petition, is that Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Jagatpur (for short ''the school of the petitioner '') was established on 2.1.1978 and he was made Secretary thereof. On 24.2.1981, he moved an application to the# Assistant Director Education (Sanskrit) for short ''A.D.E. '') for inspection for the school with a copy to the Chief Minister of the State. The Chief Minister Secretariat forwarded the application to the A.D.E. On 10.3.1981, the Sub -Divisional Education Officer, Supaul (for short ''the S.D.E.O. '') wrote a letter to the petitioner asking him to explain as to why his school was found closed at 3.30 P.M. on that day when he had gone there for inspection. On 10.3.1981, the petitioner submitted his explanation and requested the S.D.E.O. to inspect the school on 11.3.1981. The S.D.E.O. inspected the school on 11.3.1981 and submitted his report. On 13.3.1981, the S.D.E.O. sent a letter to the A.D.E. stating that Rameshwar Jha was the Secretary of the school of the petitioner. The students of the School of the petitioner have been appearing in the examinations since 1981. On 16.10.1981, the respondent no. 4, the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board informed him that the School of the petitioner has been, granted temporary recognition. On 26.12.1981, the respondent no, 3, the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, informed him that the temporary recognition granted to the School of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 constituted One man Commission for examining the records of all the Sanskrit Schools of the State for the purpose of grant of recognition. On 14.2.1983, the petitioner submitted the record of his school to respondent no. 4, who transmitted the same to the respondent no. 2 on 16.2.1983. On 25.3.1985, the respondent no. 1 granted recognition to the school of the petitioner. On 11.10.1985, the respondent no.4 wrote to the petitioner to send the list of teachers of his school for approval. The petitioner

(3.) THE case of Anil Kumar Verma, petitioner in the second writ petition, is that the respondent No. 1 had recognised the school of the petitioner on 23.3.1985. However, the respondent no.5 wrongly started claiming that the respondent no.1 had recognised his school. The respondent no.3, after considering the claim of both the parties, held that the respondent no.1 had recognised the school of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.4 accorded approval to him and five other teachers of the school of the petitioner on 19.9.1987. The respondent nos. 5 to 11 filed appeal against the order dated 10.9.1987 which was allowed by the respondent no.2 on 26.9.1987. On 1.11.1988, the respondent no.4 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has cancelled his order dated 19.9.1987.