Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 578 (PAT)

Ganga Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2003-05-16

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the intervenor of I.A. No. 788 of 2003. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 1, issued vide memo no. 292 dated 10.02.2003 by the District Education Officer, Patna, respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder respondent no. 4, Raghunath Mahatha, has been appointed as incharge Headmaster with immediate effect in place of Sri Ramadhar Sharma, incharge Headmaster, who superannuated, and also for direction to the authorities for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the D.A.V. High School, Danapur, which has already been released by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, respondent no. 2. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, D.A.V. High School, Danapur, is an aided religious minority educational institution under the meaning of Articles 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Constitution, managed by the members of the Arya Samaj and the petitioners are President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school in question. The members of the Arya Samaj, Danapur, framed certain rules for the smooth functioning of the school and got it registered on 26.04.1982 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The period of the managing committee of the school duly constituted under the Rules framed by the Arya Samaj, Danapur was going to expire in the month of November 2000, and, therefore, the date of election of the office bearers of the managing committee was fixed in the month of November 2000 itself and necessary information was given to all concerned, but all of a sudden, the Pradhan, Bihar Arya Pratinidhi Sabha stayed the scheduled election to be held on 5th November, 2000, vide letter no. 65/2000 dated 4.11.2000. In the meantime, the intervenor and one Vijay Kumar Gupta made correspondences to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, to allow them to function as the President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school.The prayer ofthe intervenor and Vijay Kumar Gupta aforesaid, however, was rejected by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, and the Director, Secondary Education, by his letter vide memo no. 991 dated 25.09.2001 directed the petitioners to continue as President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school in question and to make payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. 991 dated 25.09.2001 directed the petitioners to continue as President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school in question and to make payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. Thus, the petitioners till date are functioning as President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that by virtue of the letter, as contained in annexure 7, issued vide memo no. 991 dated 25.09.2001, the petitioners are continuing as President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school, and, therefore, respondent no. 3 had no jurisdiction to issue the office order, as contained in annexure 1, appointing respondent no. 4, Sri Raghunath Mahatha as incharge Headmaster of the school, inasmuch as respondent no. 3 was not empowered under the law to interfere in the day-to-day management of the school, as the school in question is a religious minority school under Articles 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Constitution. 5. According to the case of the intervenor, a meeting of the general body was held on 5.11.2000 under the chairmanship of Sri Ved Prakash, Pradhan, Arya Samaj, Danapur, and the managing committee of the school was duly constituted and the duly elected members in its meeting dated 2.12.2000 elected the intervenor as Secretary and one Vijay Kumar Gupta was elected.as President of the managing committee. It is the further case of the intervenor that petitioner no. 2 filed Title Suit No. 7 of 2001 in the court of the Munsif, Danapur, for a declaration that the managing committee headed by him was valid and legal. However, after appearance of the defendant, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.05.2001 and the managing committee elected on 5.11.2000 continued to function and the dispute, which arose in between the previous managing committee and the managing committee headed by the intervenor was referred to respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer and in the meantime, the writ petitioners procured order vide memo no. 991 dated 25.09.2001, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. It is the further case of the intervenor that owing to the dispute, as referred to above, respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer and in the meantime, the writ petitioners procured order vide memo no. 991 dated 25.09.2001, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. It is the further case of the intervenor that owing to the dispute, as referred to above, respondent no. 3 passed the order impugned to facilitate payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school as a stop-gap measure, and, therefore, the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The stand of the State as taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 is that the order impugned was issued as a stop-gap arrangement for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and the seniormost teacher of the school, respondent no. 4 was made incharge Headmaster of the school, and, in that view of the matter, the District Education Officer, respondent no. 3 was well within his jurisdiction to issue the impugned direction. 7. The stand of respondent no. 4, as taken in the counter affidavit, is on the same line of the intervenor. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, as referred to above, it appears that D.A.V. School, Danapur is an aided religious minority school established by the Arya Samaj under Articles. 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Constitution. It further appears that a dispute had arisen in between the two rival managing committees and as the dispute could not be resolved by respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Patna, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna vide his letter, as contained in memo no. 991 dated 25.09.2001 to facilitate payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the school, recognised the managing committee headed by the writ petitioners as the managing committee of the school. The writ petitioners, accordingly, are claiming their right to govern the school in question and no outside interference was permissible from the State authorities, as the institution was an aided religious minority institution. It further appears from the pleadings of the parties that the intervenor, Surendra Kumar Sinha, being aggrieved by the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, dated 25.09.2001, as referred to above, filed C.W.J.C. No. 14918 of 2001, which was disposed of on 19.11.2001 directing respondent no. It further appears from the pleadings of the parties that the intervenor, Surendra Kumar Sinha, being aggrieved by the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, dated 25.09.2001, as referred to above, filed C.W.J.C. No. 14918 of 2001, which was disposed of on 19.11.2001 directing respondent no. 3 to decide the dispute between the rival governing bodies of the school. The order dated 19.11.2001 was challenged by the writ petitioners in L.P.A. No. 114 of 2002, which was allowed on 24.01.2003, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2001 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge. 9. From the materials, as discussed above, it appears that the direction, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, dated 25.09.2001 was made operative and by virtue of which, the petitioners continued to be office bearers of the governing body of the school. 10. It is further manifest from the pleadings of the parties that Dharmadeo Prasad, who was made incharge Headmaster of the school by the governing body headed by the petitioners, was the seniormost teacher of the school as he was appointed as permanent assistant teacher of the school with effect from 21.3.1975, whereas respondent no. 4, Raghunath Mahatha, was confirmed as an assistant teacher by the then managing committee with effect from 23.02.1979. 11. The issue, which now falls for consideration, is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, where the school in question is established under Articles 29 (1) and 30 (1) of the Constitution, the District Education Officer, Patna, has jurisdiction to interfere with the day-today management of the school. 12. Article 105 of the Bihar Education Code (hereinafter to be referred to as "Code") is the enabling provision regarding the duties of the District Education Officer so far as the aided schools are concerned. Article 105 of the Code reads as under: "105. District Education Officers duty regarding aided schools.When inspecting aided schools including basic schools, he is required to see that the conditions attached to the grant are fully carried out, that the accounts are correctly kept, that departmental regulations are strictly followed and that discipline is properly maintained. Article 105 of the Code reads as under: "105. District Education Officers duty regarding aided schools.When inspecting aided schools including basic schools, he is required to see that the conditions attached to the grant are fully carried out, that the accounts are correctly kept, that departmental regulations are strictly followed and that discipline is properly maintained. He is empowered to the school authorities the dismissal or removal of any teacher with whose work he is dissatisfied or whose presence on the staff, he considers undesirable and to make such other recommendations with regard to the staff of the school, the constitution of the managing committee, the provision of suitable buildings, equipments, etc., as may seem to him necessary. If the District Education Officer finds any infringement of the conditions of the grant, of (sick) if there is any unwillingness or unwarrantable delay on the part of the school authorities in giving effect to his recommendation he is empowered to suspend the payment of the grant, should the complaint be not removed within a reasonable space of time, he should withdraw the grant, unless the school is a high/plus two school, in which case he should report the facts to the Directorate of Secondary Education or in the case of Basic institutions to the Director of Education (Primary)." 13. On bare reading of the provisions, as envisaged under Article 105 of the Code, it appears that the District Education Officer is required to see as to whether the conditions attached to the grant to the school are fully carried out, the accounts are correctly maintained, departmental regulations are strictly followed and discipline is properly maintained and in case the District Education Officer finds any infringement of the conditions of the grant and there is unwillingness or unwarrantable delay on the part of the school authorities in giving effect to his recommendation, he is empowered to suspend the payment of the grant. The provision, as envisaged under Article 105 of the Code, however, in no way empowers the District Education Officer to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the governing body of the school. Obviously thereof, the interference from the end of the State Government is not permissible in day-today management of the school. 14. The provision, as envisaged under Article 105 of the Code, however, in no way empowers the District Education Officer to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the governing body of the school. Obviously thereof, the interference from the end of the State Government is not permissible in day-today management of the school. 14. So far the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act (33 ot 1982) is concerned, the same does not violate right of the minority institutions guaranteed under Articie 30 (1) of the Constitution and in this connection, reference may be made to the case of All Bihar Christian Schools Association and another V/s. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 305). 15. For the reasons aforementioned and discussions made above, and in view of the legal propositions, as noticed above, it is held that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal management of the school, and, therefore, the impugned order, as contained in annexure 1, is not sustainable in law. 16. In the result, this application is allowed, the order, as contained in annexure 1, is set aside and the authority concerned is directed to make the fund available to the school in question for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, which has already been released by respondent no. 2, in case payment has not been made. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Before I part with this order, I would like to observe that this order, in no way, will come in the way of the authorities in constitution of the managing committee of the school in question in accordance with law.