Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 27 (JHR)

Prem Shankar Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-10

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER 1. The petitioner who is a teacher in DAV High School, Dhanbad has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order restraining respondent No. 3, the Managing Committee of the said school from appointing respondent No. 4 as Headmaster in the said school. 2. Petitioners case is that he being the seniormost teacher was appointed by the Governing body as incharge headmaster. It is alleged that the Managing Committee of the said school illegally and arbitrarily appointed respondent No. 4 as headmaster of the said school. 3. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application against the Governing Body of the said school and this Court also, while issuing notices, expressed its doubt in the order dated 20.7.2000 with regard to the maintainability of the writ application, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel, submitted that DAV school. Dhanbad is a religious minority institution and the Governing Body of the said school is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. From perusal of the writ application it appears that the petitioner has admitted in para 5 of the writ application that DAV school, Dhanbad is a minority institution established under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, clear that the school in question which is a religious minority institution is run by the Governing Body and there is no interference in the internal administration of the school. In my opinion, therefore, the instant writ application is not maintainable against the Governing Body of the said school. 5. In the case of Smt. Radha Kumari v. Governing Body, 1976 BBCJ 470. similar matter came before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. In that case writ application was filed for a direction to the Governing Body of Mahant Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidalaya. Arra to appoint the writ petitioner after quashing the appointment of respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the resolution of the Governing Body of the said college. The Division Bench, after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and the different High Courts, held that the managing Committee not being the statutory body, a writ against the Governing Body is not maintainable. 6. In the case of Managing Committee, High School, Jamui v. Sri Sheonandan Sinha. The Division Bench, after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and the different High Courts, held that the managing Committee not being the statutory body, a writ against the Governing Body is not maintainable. 6. In the case of Managing Committee, High School, Jamui v. Sri Sheonandan Sinha. 1977 PLJR 425, a prayer was made for quashing the resolution of the Managing Committee of the High school, Jamui, Munger whereby it was resolved by the Managing Committee to abolish the system of higher secondary education in the school and also to abolish the post of Principal and Vice Principal. It was canvassed from the Bar that the Managing Committee of the said school was not a creature of any statute but merely governed by some statutory provisions in discharge of its function. The Division Bench also held that a writ against the Managing Committee of such school cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. As noticed above, in the instant case it has not been disputed that the DAV, High School, Dhanbad is a religious minority institution and is run by the Governing Body of the Managing Committee of the said school. No writ, therefore, can be issued against the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed. 8. Writ dismissed.