Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in 1985 in a recognised Sanskrit primary-cum-middle school at Naima, Jehanabad. The school was being run by a Managing Committee or Ad-hoc Committee and was under the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board.
His appointment was approved by the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board through letter no. 2933 dated 14.08.1986.
Many years later, a complaint was filed against him before a “Janta Darbar” alleging irregularities in the Mid-Day Meal (MDM) scheme at the school. On this complaint, the Block Sadhan Sevi Mid Day Meal Officer conducted an inquiry on 12.12.2011. The allegations against the petitioner were found to be true in that inquiry.
On the basis of this report, the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, by letter dated 07.01.2012, directed the District Education Officer (DEO), Jehanabad, to take action. The DEO, by letter dated 12.01.2012, recommended suspension of the petitioner.
Meanwhile, an Ad-hoc Committee of the school was constituted by the Sanskrit Board by order dated 18.12.2012. Acting through this Ad-hoc Committee, the Secretary issued a suspension order against the petitioner on 09.01.2013.
The petitioner challenged this suspension before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16831 of 2013. By order dated 29.08.2013, the Court disposed of that writ. It directed respondents 3, 4 and 5 (which included the Chairman of the Board, the District Magistrate and the District Education Officer) to take a final decision regarding continuation of the suspension within three months.
The Court also directed the District Education Officer to release the petitioner’s subsistence allowance, including arrears and current payments, within one month. Respondent no. 7 (the Managing Committee of the school) was directed to pass a final order in terms of the communication it would receive from respondents 3, 4 and 5 about continuation of suspension.
Thereafter, the Secretary of the Sanskrit Board, by Memo No. 3900 dated 11.09.2014, approved the Ad-hoc Committee’s decision dated 24.03.2013 to terminate the petitioner’s services.
The petitioner filed Appeal No. 27 of 2016 before the Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, against this termination. By order dated 19.11.2018, the appeal was dismissed and the termination was upheld.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9612 of 2015) before the Patna High Court, challenging both the Board’s order dated 11.09.2014 and the Ad-hoc Committee’s proposal dated 17.11.2013, and seeking consequential monetary dues.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha. The core controversy was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition by a teacher of a privately managed, aided Sanskrit school against an order of termination passed by the school’s Managing Committee.
The petitioner’s side argued that subsequent inquiries had cleared him of the allegations, and that the termination was illegal and passed without following proper procedure.
According to him, a later inquiry was conducted by the District Mid Day Meal In-charge Officer on 02.07.2013. In this inquiry, none of the allegations of irregularities were found to be proved. He stressed that despite this favourable report, he was kept under suspension from 09.01.2013 without any subsistence allowance and then terminated by the Secretary of the Sanskrit Board.
The petitioner submitted that both the termination order of the Sanskrit Board and the appellate order of the Special Secretary, Education Department, were passed without application of mind. He argued that because these authorities had approved and upheld his termination, his writ petition against their orders was maintainable.
He also claimed that no proper show cause notice or opportunity of defence was given to him before the termination. He relied on Rules 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit High School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1976, to suggest that disciplinary procedure had not been followed.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 7 (the Managing Committee of the Sanskrit school) attacked the inquiry report dated 02.07.2013 relied on by the petitioner. It was argued that this report had been obtained in connivance with certain officials and was manipulated.
It was also pointed out that the Secretary of the earlier Managing Committee was the sister-in-law of the petitioner, implying a conflict of interest. Respondent no. 7 further contended that, in view of a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Chandra Nath Thakur and Ors. vs. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors., reported in 1999(1) PLJR 529, the writ petition itself was not maintainable.
Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 (the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board and its Chairman) explained the process followed after the earlier writ C.W.J.C. No. 16831 of 2013.
They stated that, to comply with the High Court’s order of 29.08.2013, the Ad-hoc Committee of the school constituted a three-member committee to inquire into the allegations. The petitioner did not appear before this committee or produce any evidence.
A notice was published in a newspaper on 05.09.2013 calling upon the petitioner to appear, but he still did not attend. The committee therefore proceeded on the basis of the available records, and submitted its report on 03.11.2013. In this report, it found that the petitioner had committed irregularities in the Mid-Day Meal scheme and had misappropriated government funds.
Based on this report, the Ad-hoc Committee met on 17.11.2013 and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The Secretary of the Ad-hoc Committee then requested the Board, by letter dated 25.11.2013, to approve this decision. The District Education Officer, Jehanabad, also wrote on 25.04.2014 to the Board asking it to take a decision in light of the school committee’s resolution.
Acting on these communications, the Secretary of the Sanskrit Board approved the termination of the petitioner by order dated 11.09.2014, which was later upheld in Appeal No. 27 of 2016 by the Special Secretary, Education Department, through Memo No. 166 dated 19.11.2018.
After hearing all sides and perusing the records, the Court turned to the binding Division Bench decision in Chandra Nath Thakur’s case. That judgment had examined the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Ordinance, 1980, later enacted as the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981.
The Division Bench had held that, in the absence of any statutory rules framed by the State Government under Section 22(2) of the 1981 Act, the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board or its Chairman does not have any disciplinary power to approve orders of dismissal passed by Managing Committees of recognized Sanskrit schools.
It further held that, practically, the Board may have administrative control over the schools, but not the power to dismiss teaching and non-teaching employees until such rules are framed.
Crucially, the Division Bench also held that a teacher of a privately managed school, even if the school is financially aided by the State Government or by the Board, cannot maintain a writ petition against an order of termination from service passed by the Managing Committee. For such teachers, the proper remedy is before a civil court, and the Board’s role is limited to matters such as approval of appointments or dissolution or constitution of Managing Committees.
Applying this settled law to the present case, the Court noted that the relevant termination decision was that of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee, taken on 17.11.2013, based on the three-member committee’s report dated 03.11.2013.
The subsequent approval of this termination by the Chairman of the Board on 11.09.2014 was held to be “inconsequential and without jurisdiction,” because, as per the Division Bench decision, the Board had no disciplinary authority to approve a dismissal order in the absence of rules under Section 22(2) of the 1981 Act.
Similarly, the appellate order passed in Appeal No. 27 of 2016 by the Special Secretary, Education Department, was treated as inconsequential for deciding whether the writ petition was maintainable. In substance, what was under challenge was the termination order passed by the Ad-hoc Managing Committee itself on 17.11.2013.
Following the law laid down in Chandra Nath Thakur’s case, the Court concluded that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy for challenging an order of termination passed by the Managing Committee of such a privately managed, aided Sanskrit school.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
At the same time, the Court expressly left it open to the petitioner to approach “competent court of civil jurisdiction” for redressal of his grievance. Thus, while the High Court did not examine the merits of the allegations or the conduct of the inquiry, it pointed the petitioner towards the correct legal forum for his dispute.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teachers and staff of privately managed Sanskrit schools in Bihar, even where such schools receive government aid.
The Patna High Court has reinforced that service disputes like suspension, dismissal or termination by the Managing Committee of such schools cannot normally be challenged directly through a writ petition.
Even if the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board or State authorities have “approved” or “upheld” the dismissal, such approval has no legal value unless proper rules under Section 22(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981, are framed.
For teachers and employees, this means that the correct path for challenging termination orders is to file a civil suit in the appropriate civil court, not to go straight to the High Court under writ jurisdiction.
For Managing Committees and the Board, the judgment clarifies that the Board cannot exercise disciplinary powers of dismissal or termination in the absence of statutory rules, though it may continue to exercise administrative functions such as approving appointments and managing committees.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a teacher of a privately managed, government-aided Sanskrit school maintain a writ petition before the Patna High Court against an order of termination passed by the school’s Managing Committee?
Answer: No. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in Chandra Nath Thakur’s case, the Court held that such a writ petition is not maintainable. The teacher must approach the competent civil court. - Issue: Does approval of a termination order by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board or its Chairman give jurisdiction to the High Court to entertain a writ challenging that termination?
Answer: No. In the absence of rules under Section 22(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981, the Board or Chairman has no disciplinary power to approve dismissals. Such approval is inconsequential and without jurisdiction.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Chandra Nath Thakur and Ors. vs. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors., reported in 1999(1) PLJR 529.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9612 of 2015
Case Title: Mahesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 05.04.2024
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 430
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Ravi Shankar, Advocate
For the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Advocate; Mr. P.K. Singh, SC-12
For Respondent No. 7 (Managing Committee of the school): Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging termination from service and related orders.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
