Judgment S. B. Sinba, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the orders, dated 23-3-1983 as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 and a copy of the order, dated 28-4-1984, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioners were allegedly appointed as teachers in Harish Chandra jha Uchch Vidyalaya by the Managing Committee thereof. According to the petitioners, their appointments were also approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha board in terms of provisions of Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981. The petitioners have asserted in the writ application the petitioner No.1 was the founder of the said School. The petitioners were further asserted that both of them have the requisite qualifications to be appointed in the post of teachers in the said School. It appears that several complaints were made with regard to the appointment of the petitioners and the Board purported to have appointed one Diwakar Shashtri to enquire into the matter and allegedly in terms of the report submitted by aforesaid Sri Shastri, the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled by the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application. The petitioners have asserted that before passing the said orders, they filed a writ application in this Court which was registered as c. W. J. C. No.3899/82, but as during the pendency of the said writ application the aforementioned orders, as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application were passed, they were directed to prefer appeals before the Special Director in terms of provision of Sec.24 of the Act. The petitioners have stated that pursuant to the said order they preferred appeals, but by order, dated 28-4-1984, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same barred by limitation and further on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the requisite fee therefor. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have raised two submissions, firstly the learned counsel contended in terms of the provision, contained in Sec.11 (2) of the Act, the Board had no power to take disciplinary action against the teachers. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have raised two submissions, firstly the learned counsel contended in terms of the provision, contained in Sec.11 (2) of the Act, the Board had no power to take disciplinary action against the teachers. Learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter as before passing the said order, the petitioners were not heard by the Board, there has been a violation of the rules of natural justice and in that view of the matter, the impugned orders as contained in annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application are vitiated in law. Mr. Dinesh charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No.4, submit that although the order as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 of the writ application, it had been mentioned that the appointments of the petitioners are being cancelled but in effect and substance the same must be held to be an order of termination of service passed by the Board. Learned counsel further pointed out that an enquiry was made by Shri Divvakar Shastri and the petitioners had ample opportunity to prove their innocence and in any view of the matter there has been substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is admitted by the parties that the school in question is non-Government School. It also stands admitted that the Slate of Bihar has not yet issued any notification in terms of Sec.20 of the Act. In this view of the matter the teachers of the privately managed School have not become the employees of the Board in terms thereof. However, it is admitted that the School in question was recognised by the Board and in this view of the matter the Board had jurisdiction to grant approval of appointment of the teacher of a recognised School. Sec.11 (2)empowers the Chairman of the Board to appoint any employee of the Board on the post sanctioned but the Chairman does not have any power to appoint any teachers and other officers of the Board. The Chairman of the Board has only the disciplinary power in regard to such employees who could be appointed by him. 5. Sec.11 (2)empowers the Chairman of the Board to appoint any employee of the Board on the post sanctioned but the Chairman does not have any power to appoint any teachers and other officers of the Board. The Chairman of the Board has only the disciplinary power in regard to such employees who could be appointed by him. 5. Plainly enough the provisions of Sec.11 (2) of the Act would have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case and as such there cannot be any doubt that the Chairman of the Board had no jurisdiction to pass any order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner or otherwise terminating their services. Necessarily, however the Board must be deemed to have power to pass an order of withdrawal of the order of approval appointing the petitioners as teacher which might have been obtained from either by playing fraud or on suppression of the material fact or on similar such grounds. However, before such an order can be passed, the Board must comply with the principle of natural justice. In paragraph 32 of the writ application it has categorically been stated by the petitioner that before the impugned orders were passed, the petitioners were not issued any notice by the Board nor any proceeding therefore was initiated against them. This fact has not been denied by the Board. The Board, however, in its counter-affidavit stated as follows : "that in reply to the statement made in paragraph 32 of the writ application, it is stated that several objection petition against the appointment of the petitioners were filed in the office of the Board. Therefore, in view to enquire into the matter. Diwakar Shastri was authorised by the Board to hold a detailed enquiry into these affairs. Proper opportunity was given to the petitioners to prove the genuineness of their appointment. It was found in the enquiry that no managing committee had ever appointed them as teachers in the school. Both the petitioners appeared before the Enquirying officer, placed their case and they failed to show the genuineness of their appointments. Therefore, it is not correct and say that no notice was issued to them, prior to cancelling their appointment. " From a perusal of the counter-affidavit it is clear that neither any proceeding was initiated as against the petitioners nor any notice was issued to them. Therefore, it is not correct and say that no notice was issued to them, prior to cancelling their appointment. " From a perusal of the counter-affidavit it is clear that neither any proceeding was initiated as against the petitioners nor any notice was issued to them. The purported enquiry which might have been made by Shri Shastri in presence of the petitioners or behind their back, in my opinion, was wholly inconsequential inasmuch as no proceeding had been initiated by the Board. Had an opportunity been given, the petitioner could have shown before the Board that the findings recorded by Sri Diwakar Shastri in his report are not correct. Had such opportunity been given to the petitioner they further could have shown that in fact, they were validly appointed by the Managing Committee. 6 Taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, I am, therefore, of the view that in this circumstances, the Board must before passing any order as against the petitioner withdrawing the approval of their appointment granted in their favour by its earlier order, must give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If and when such a proceeding is initiated by the Board, the petitioners shall be given by the Board an opportunity to produce their own evidence both oral and documentary and shall also be given an opportunity to be heard in person or through their representative if any. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexures-7, 8 and 10 are quashed and the Board is hereby directed to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8. However, it may be mentioned that the Respondent No.4 has been functioning in place of petitioner No.2. In view of the fact that the said respondent is also working pursuant to the order of the Board, during the period the proceeding as against petitioners is not completed, the respondent No.4 shall be allowed to work as a teacher and any appropriate order with regard to respondent No.4 may also be passed allong with the case of the petitioners after giving him an opportunity of hearing. 9. 9. It is expected that the Board shall dispose of the matter with utmost-expedition and shall pass order/orders in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.