CHHUTAHARU DAS PRATHMIK- SAH MADHYA SANSKRIT VIDYALAYA PATHARAHA Vs. KANT MISHRA SON OF LATE MAKHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned AC to AAG-15 and Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

(2.) It is feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.09.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11864 of 2013 whereby the writ petition was dismissed allowing the petitioner to establish the issue of recognition through the process of a suit that petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) In our opinion, the facts lie in a very narrow compass for it is undisputed that following the statutory provision underlying the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that 205 Sanskrit schools were granted recognition on the basis of recommendation made by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board under the enabling powers vested in them under Section 6(2) of 'the Act'. It is vide resolution dated 23.03.1985 of the State Government in its Education Department published in the Gazette Extraordinary on 13.04.1985 that 205 schools were granted recognition including the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1985. The name of the petitioner appears at serial no. 88 of the said Gazette publication. This is not in dispute. What is disputed is that on the basis of some enquiry made, which raised doubts on the functioning of the School in between the period 1990-1993, on an order was passed under the signature of the Additional Secretary vide order bearing Memo No. 185 dated 08.02.1994 that the recognition of the petitioner institution was cancelled. This order has been placed on record vide Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf the Education Department in the present appeal. Undisputed fact again is that the recognition under the law in force was granted to these institutions together with the financial aid. It is when this financial aid was stopped understandably in view of the order dated 08.02.1994 of the Additional Secretary, Education Department that the petitioner after making rounds of the Board office as well as the State Government came before this Court in CWJC no. 13643 of 2000 and when the District Magistrate was directed to hold fresh enquiry into the matter and make his recommendations.