Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. As both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. L. P. A.126 of 1994 has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 1994, passed in c. W. J. C.4617 of 1984. The aforesaid writ-petition was analogous with other writ-petition. This appeal has been filed by one Ramadhar Dwivedi (Appellant)and the same relates to appointment to the post of Head Master of Lakshmi sangveda Sanskrit High School, thakurbari, Jehanabad (For short the school ). 3. The other L. P. A. No.127 of 1994 has been filed against the same judgment dated 27th June, 1994, passed in C. W. J. C. No.2756 of 1987, which was analogous with other writ petitions, including the writ petition above. There are three appellants, including Ramadhar dwivedi. They filed the writ-petition, claiming salary for the period from 1st of April, 1985 up-to date. Both this writ petitions having been dismissed, the present appeals have been filed. 4. So far as L. P. A.126/94 is concerned, according to the appellant ramadhar Dwivedi, the school, in question, was a Non-Government Sanskrit school, in which the appellant was appointed as Assistant Sanskrit Teacher on 17th April, 1979, wherein he worked upto 1st May, 1980. After the death of regular Head Master, one Shambhu narain Prasad Singh was appointed as i/c. head Master on 14th March, 1984, but the same was not approved by bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (for short the Board ). It is claimed that the appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi was made I/c. Head Master of the school with effect from 14th July, 1984. In the year 1984, the appellant (Ramadhar Dwivedi) was proceeded with the charge of sodomy with a student of a school. The appellant was discharged on 21st January, 1984 and the respondent-shyam Narain prasad Singh was made I. C. Head master. However, subsequently, the appellant was reinstated. It is stated that the Board cancelled the appointment of respondent Shyam Narain Prasad Singh as I/c. Head Master of the School and it was ordered to hand over charge to the appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi. Against the said order, one writ petition (C. W. J. C.4618/84) was filed by one syed. Mokhtar Hussain and another writ-petition (C. W. J. C.4617/84) was filed by respondent Shyam Narain prasad Singh. Against the said order, one writ petition (C. W. J. C.4618/84) was filed by one syed. Mokhtar Hussain and another writ-petition (C. W. J. C.4617/84) was filed by respondent Shyam Narain prasad Singh. The Respondent-Shyam narain Prasad Singh subsequently filed another writ petition (C. W. J. C.2616/85) challenging the constitution of managing Committee. The said writ petition (C. W. J. C.2616/85) was. earlier disposed of on 24th June, 1985 and no relief was granted in favour of Shyam narain Prasad Singh. Subsequently, the board, vide its order dated 14th december, 1985 ordered that the respondent-Shyam Narain Prasad singh will function as Head master of the school, in question, who is to constitute a Managing Committee. Such order was passed on 14th December, 1985, which was challenged by appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi in C. W. J. C. No.117 of 1986. The aforesaid writ-petition (C. W. J. C. No.117/86) was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 14th january 1986 and the appellant was directed to file appeal before the appellate authority. The Special Director (Sanskrit) Education of the State government by order dated 14th november, 1986 cancelled the order by which Respondent No.6 was made head Master. In this background, the respondent No.6 filed another writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.5557/86) challenging the order of Special Director (Sanskrit) Education dated 11th november, 1986. All the aforesaid writ petitions, including C. W. J. C. No.4617/84 were heard together. A separate writ-petition which was filed by Ramadhar dwivedi along with two other persons (Appellants of L. P. A.127/84), which was numbered as C. W. J. C. No.2756/87, the same was also heard together. The writ petition filed by Shambhu Narain prasad Singh (i. e. C. W. J. C. No.4617/84) has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, and thereby appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi lost the case relating to his claim for the post of headmaster. The other writ petition filed by Ramadhar Dwivedi and two others, i. e. C. W. J. C. No.2756/87, by which they claimed for salary, due since 1st April, 1985, the same has been dismissed. It is for the said reason, the aforesaid two L. P. As. have been preferred by the appellants. 5. The other writ petition filed by Ramadhar Dwivedi and two others, i. e. C. W. J. C. No.2756/87, by which they claimed for salary, due since 1st April, 1985, the same has been dismissed. It is for the said reason, the aforesaid two L. P. As. have been preferred by the appellants. 5. The counsel for the appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi, while pleading in l. P. A.126/94, submitted that the appellant being qualified for the post of head Master, he should have been allowed to continue as Head Master of the school, and thereby the order by which his appointment as Head Master was approved, should have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. It was further contended that the respondent-Shyam Narain Prasad Singh being not a degree holder in Acharya, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of head Master of the school, and thereby his writ petition should have been dismissed. It was further submitted that the Managing Committee headed by appellant was a real Managing Committee and not the other managing committee as claimed by respondent-Shyam Narain Prasad Singh. Further, according to the appellant, the law as was existing at that point of time, according to the same, the appellant was qualified for appointment to the post of Head Master. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shyam Narain Prasad singh, on the other hand, contended that the appellant Ramadhar Dwivedi having no requisite qualification relating to experience, as in the year 1984, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master. It was submitted that as the appellant was found unfit by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Head master because of ineligibility, having no requisite qualification, as well as because of the charge levelled against him, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of Ramadhar dwivedi (appellant) for his appointment to the post of Head Master of the school. 7. So far as L. P. A.127/94 is concerned, according to the appellants including Ramadhar Dwivedi, they have performed the duty even after 1-4-1985. It was submitted on their behalf that they were entitled for their salary having performed their dudes and they cannot be deprived of such salary on the basis of any report submitted by a so-called Managing Committee, which is not valid in the eye of law. 8. It was submitted on their behalf that they were entitled for their salary having performed their dudes and they cannot be deprived of such salary on the basis of any report submitted by a so-called Managing Committee, which is not valid in the eye of law. 8. Having heard the parties and after going through all the relevant documents, I am of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant Ramadhar Dwivedi was not eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master as in 1984. It will be evident, as claimed for by the appellant ramadhar Dwivedi that the was appointed in the year 1979. So it is clear that he had no requisite ten years of experience in the year 1984, as required for appointment to the post of Head master of a Sanskrit school. 9. At this stage, it is to be taken into note that according to the counsel for the appellant, it was only five years of experience that was required for appointment to the post of Head Master, as was the law prevailing at that point of time. According to me, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted at this appellate stage, as no such pleading was made before the learned Single Judge, nor any such Rule has been placed on record. Apart from the same, it will be evident that the Selection Committee took into note the allegation against the appellant Ramadhar Dwivedi relating to sodomy. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to impress that he was exonerated of such charge. However, he could not point out as to by which order, the appellant-Ramadhar Dwivedi was exonerated from such charge. In this background also, because of aforesaid charge, it is not desirable that such a person should continue as Head master of the dchool, particularly, when the Selection Committee has taken the same into account to hold the appellant as unfit for the post of Head Master. 10. I find no error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge so far as C. W. J. C. No.4617 of 1984 is concerned. 11. 10. I find no error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge so far as C. W. J. C. No.4617 of 1984 is concerned. 11. So far as other L. P. A No.127 of 1994 is concerned, though claim has been made by the appellants for payment of salary for the period from 1-4-1985 onwards, the Counsel for the appellants failed to impress as to why they were not paid salary since 1-4-1985, i. e. for the last more than ten years. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellants of L. P. A. No.127/94 have performed their duties from 1-4-1985 and onwards. It was not possible for this Court to decide under the writ jurisdiction as to whether the appellants actually performed their duties since 1-4-1985 or not. It is for the Managing Committee to state the actual position. If there is a dispute relating to the work of appellants, no decision can be given by this Court on such disputed fact. 12. Thereby, I find that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.2756/1987 ). 13. Accordingly, there being no merit in both the appeals. They are dismissed. There shall be no order, as to costs. Appeals Dismissed.