Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, inter alia, to grant approval to the recommendation of the managing committee of the Islamia High School, Sheikhpura in the district of Monghyr appointing him as regular Headmaster thereof. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. Islamia High School, Sheikhpura is a minority institution. The managing committee of the said School on 7 5 1976 issued an advertisement. The petitioner was appointed on 13.6 1976 by the managing committee. The petitioner was allegedly given the pay scale of Headmaster by the District education Officer on 20 10.1986. A writ petition was filed by some of the members of the managing committee of the School before this court in c. W. J. C. No.173 of 1989 praying therein that the grant of scale of pay of the Headmaster to the petitioner be quashed. By an order dated 13.3 1991 this Court quashed the said order of the District Education Officer. The petitioner filed an application for special leave to appeal before the supreme Court of India against the said order which was registered as S L P. (Civil) No.10218 of 1991 and by order dated 30.9.1991 the said appeal was dismissed. However, the petitioner was directed to be paid his salary with effect from 1.2.1980 till the date of passing of the said order by the Supreme court. The respondents were, however, given liberty to put an advertisement for such appointment and the petitioner was also given a liberty to apply therefor. The order of the Supreme Court is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 issued a letter dated 4.10.1991 directing the petitioner to continue as Headmaster. The petitioner also filed a representation that as he has been continuing as Headmaster for 16 years, his services should be regularised. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 6 10 1991 as contained in annexure-4 to the writ application whereby the petitioner was directed to give charge to respondent No 6. 4. In this case a caveat petition has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.6. The petitioner, however, received a letter dated 6 10 1991 as contained in annexure-4 to the writ application whereby the petitioner was directed to give charge to respondent No 6. 4. In this case a caveat petition has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.6. In the said application, it has been stated that respondent No.6 was appointed as an assistant teacher in 1966 and he joined the said school on 1.8.1966. With effect from 1.4.1978 he was granted scale of senior selection grade teacher. According to respondent No.6, although the petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster, he somehow succeeded in getting the pay scale of Headmaster. The respondents have contended that from a perusal of judgment of this Court in c. W. J C. No.173 of 1989 as also from the order of Supreme Court passed in S. L. P. (C) No 10218 of 1991 which was later on converted into Civil appeal No.4069 of 1991 it is clear that the petitioner was not entitled to the scale of pay of Headmaster. It has been stated that the managing committee of the School by a resolution dated 24.4 1991 resolved to appoint him as Incharge Headmaster of the said school. The said resolution is contained in Annexure-A/6 to the caveat application. The District Education Officer also issued an order to that effect vide memo No 8225-39 dated 10 5.1991 (Annexure-B/6 to the caveat application) According to respondent No.6 the Supreme Court has merely directed for payment of salary to the petitioner till 30th September, 1991, but his scale as Headmaster of the school in question has not been accepted However, by another order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure-C/6 to the caveat application) the District Education officer directed the respondent No.6 to continue as Incharge Headmaster. By letter dated 28.11 1991 the order of the District Education officer Monghyr was approved by the Director, Secondary Education. Respondent no.6 has stated that Sri S. M. Masood Haider, Secretary of the managing Committee of the said High School was not acting in the interest of the School and, thus, the Managing Committee in a general meeting held on 17 6 1991 unanimously resolved to remove him from the post of secretary and one M Ashique Hussain Khan was elected to act as temporary Secretary from that date. The aforesaid resolution dated 17.6.1991 is contained Annexure-E/6 to the caveat application. The aforesaid resolution dated 17.6.1991 is contained Annexure-E/6 to the caveat application. According to Respondent no 6 thereafter an advertisement was published in two newspapers on 22.10.1991 and 17 10 1991 which are contained in Annexure-F/6 and G/6 to the caveat application, calling for application from the eligible candidates for the post of Headmaster of the School. It is stated that thereafter a Selection Committee was constituted and after taking interview of the eligible candidates a resolution was passed by the managing committee of the School to appoint Respondent no.6 as Headmaster on permanent basis. The District Education Officer also recommended for the appointment of Respondent no.6 on the post of Headmaster by a letter dated 20.11.1991 (Annexure-I/6 to the caveat application ). Bihar School Service board also in a meeting held on 30.3.1992 concurred the appointment of respondent no.6 as Headmaster of the School, which has been communicated by letter dated 4.4.1991 as contained in Annexure-I/6 to the caveat application. Thereafter the pay scale of Respondent no.6 has also been fixed on the post of Headmaster. 5. According to Respondent no 6 he has been discharging the duties and functions of Headmaster of the aforementioned School It has been contended that the purported resolution of the managing committee appointing the petitioner as Headmaster is a forged and fabricated document. 6. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have also filed counter-affidavit wherein inter alia it has been contended that the appointment of the petitioner as headmaster was (sic) made by an illegal and bogus managing committee. It has been further stated that he has been absconding since 12.10.1991 with the key of the School Almirahs and some important papers, and Respondent no.6 has been appointed in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court of India. 7. A reply to the caveat petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, wherein, it has been contended that the order of the District Education Officer (Annexure-D/6 to the caveat petition)was passed on the basis of alleged resolution of the managing committee held on 24 4.1991, which in fact was never held and thus cannot be relied upon. It has been stated that the District Education Officer, Monghyr (Respondent no.5) is a close relative of Respondent no.6 and thus, playing mischief in the matter. It has been stated that the District Education Officer, Monghyr (Respondent no.5) is a close relative of Respondent no.6 and thus, playing mischief in the matter. The petitioner has further brought on record a letter dated 6 8 1992, which is contained in Annexure-15 to the reply to this caveat application filed by respondent no.6, addressed by the Deputy Director of Education to the additional Director of Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, wherein it has been contended that in view of the fact that two managing committees in the said school appear to have been functioning and as the Chairman of the Bihar legislative Council had directed an inquiry to be made in this regard, the addressee has been requested to make an inquiry and clarify as to which managing committee was legally constituted. 8. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from a perusal of the order passed by the Supreme court as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, it would appear the petitioner was recognised as Headmaster of the School, till the passing of the said order dated 30.9.1991. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not correct that the Secretary of the School has been removed, but, as would appear from Annexure-B/6 to the caveat application that the old secretary had been continuing upto 10.5.1991. It has further been submitted that as Respondent no.6 is a relation of the District Education Officer, respondent no.6 has been able to obtain some directions from his office. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that although in Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, an allegation has been made that the managing committee which had appointed the petitioner was bogus, but the same has not been verified in accordance with law. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that although we may not go into the disputed question of fact that which of the two managing committee is legal or which of the two advertisements issued for appointment of the post of Headmaster was legal, in view of Annexure-15 to the writ application this court should direct that the petitioner would continue to work as Headmaster till the inquiry pursuant to Annexure-15 it completed. 9. 9. There cannot be any doubt that the earlier appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster has been found to be illegal by this Court in c. W. T. C No.173 of 1989. The said judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India, but, the petitioner has merely been directed to be paid his salary as Headmaster. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide as to whether Sri S. M. Hyder (Respondent no.7) was acting bona fidely and in the interest of the School or he had in fact been removed from the post of the Secretary. 10. However, it appears that except the letters written by the aforementioned Sri S. M. Hyder to the petitioner and vice versa, no other document has been brought on records for the purpose of showing that the petitioner was permitted to continue as Acting Headmaster. In terms of section 18 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over management and Control) Act, 198) the appointment of teachers must be approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board. The said provision being regulatory in nature has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of All Bihar Christian Schools Association and another V/s. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1988 SC 305 ). 11. Prima facie, therefore, I am satisfied that Respondent no 6, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, should be allowed to continue headmaster of the School in question. As noticed hereinbefore the State has contended that the petitioner has been absconding with keys of the school Almirahs and relevant papers, I hope and trust that in the interest of smooth functioning of the School, the petitioner shall return the said articles, if the assertions of the State are correct. ( may, however, point out that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot determine various disputed questions of facts, raised in this writ application. Such disputed questions of facts have to be determined by the authorities concerned at the first instance. ( may, however, point out that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot determine various disputed questions of facts, raised in this writ application. Such disputed questions of facts have to be determined by the authorities concerned at the first instance. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to accede to the request of the petitioner that he may be allowed to continue as Headmaster of the School in question in view of the fact that the petitioner has been found to have been illegally appointed as Headmaster by the managing committee by this court in C. W. J. C. No.173 of 1989. la any event as noticed hereinbefore obtaining of approval of Vidyalya Seva Board for appointment of a teacher on the post of Headmaster is a must. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Dismissed