Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 165 (PAT)

Ramadhar Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-15

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Petitioner claims to be the Headmaster of Ramanujiya Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nawahi Math (Jhula Bhawan), Nawahi, PS Sursand, District Sitamarhi. Respondent No. 8, Sachidanand Mishra is the Headmaster of Ramanujiya Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nawahi, District Sitamarhi. The real dispute which is subject matter of this writ petition, is which of the two schools is the recognised school by Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University and later by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. The dispute has a chequered history which is evident from judgment and order dated 27.4.1998 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. By that judgment contained in Annexure-12 two writ petitions, one of the year 1988 filed by respondent no 8 and another, and other of the year 1994 filed by the petitioner and others, were allowed. The order dated 27.5.1988 (Annexure-9) of the Vice-Chancellor of the University which was against respondent no. 8 and the order dated 16.3.1994 (Annexure-10) of the State Government in favour of respondent no. 8 were quashed and the State Government was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order after affording the parties proper opportunity of leading evidence and hearing, within a time frame. 2. Pursuant to the Division Bench judgment dated 27.4.1998, the State Government got an enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, respondent no. 7 who submitted his report dated 9.11.2000 (Annexure-1) to the Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna. Petitioner has challenged the said report contained in Annexure-1 which is against his claim and which is in favour of claim of respondent no. 8. A consequential order of the State Government communicated through letter dated 31.3.2001 by the Special Director to the Chairman and Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has also been brought on record through an amendment petition contained in I.A. No. 1393 of 2005 and has been assailed by the petitioner as a wrong order based upon wrong report of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure-1. 3. The main point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the impugned enquiry report of District Magistrate (Annexure-1) is fit to be rejected because it was prepared without affording opportunity to the petitioner. On the same ground Annexure-14 has been assailed because it is apparently a consequential order of the Government based upon impugned enquiry report of the District Magistrate. 4. On the same ground Annexure-14 has been assailed because it is apparently a consequential order of the Government based upon impugned enquiry report of the District Magistrate. 4. On behalf of the petitioner learned counsel made a further attempt to persuade this Court to look into various reports and documents and hold that in fact petitioners school is the real school entitled for benefits of recognised school. Lastly, it was submitted that a successor District Magistrate of Sitamarhi has filed a counter affidavit in this case in which he has opposed the claim of the petitioner but has further stated that on 23.1.2001 the District Magistrate alongwith the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi made enquiries from local public to find out which of the two schools is genuine and in that enquiry the local public allegedly stated before the District Magistrate that these schools are not running on the spot. They have no existence and they are oniy on paper. A report to this effect by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi dated 31.1.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of alternative submission relied upon the said report to submit that since subsequently on 31.1.2001 the District Magistrate has given his conclusion that both the schools have no existence on ground hence even if the claim of the petitioner is not accepted, the State Government through the Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar be directed to ensure that no grants by the State Government or by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board be made available to the school of respondent no. 8. 5. On going through the main report contained in Annexure-1 it is noticed that the enquiry was referred to the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi regarding validity of claims of the rival schools alongwith documents made available by Headmasters of both the schools. In that report it has been found by the District Magistrate that school of respondent no. 8 is mentioned in the list of approved middle schools as prepared by the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga and the school was found in existence on ground level also. The report of Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board was noticed by the District Magistrate in which it was admitted that the school of respondent no. 8 had earlier received Jamindari grant by Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University. The report of Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Education Board was noticed by the District Magistrate in which it was admitted that the school of respondent no. 8 had earlier received Jamindari grant by Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University. Its teachers and non-teaching staff had received payments as per evidence shown by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. The Headmaster, respondent no. 8, seven other teachers and three non-teaching employees of the school were found to be working and their appointments appeared to be in accordance with law. For proper running of the school of respondent no. 8, regular payment of employees was found to be desirable and necessary. 6. In respect of the school of petitioner, the report of District Magistrate mentions that it was not in tne list of approved schools of Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University nor it had any recognition of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. 7. On going through the materials on record it is found that petitioner had adequate opportunity and admittedly it had submitted its documents and all necessary details in the enquiry by the District Magistrate. It is also apparent from documents of the petitioner dated 19.7.2000 contained in Annexure-13. On the basis of all the materials it is found that the point raised on behalf of the petitioner that the report of the District Magistrate was prepared without affording opportunity to the petitioner is found to be without any substance and on this account no fault can be found with the enquiry report contained in Annexure-1 or the consequential order of the Government communicated by Annexure-14 which has also been challenged by the petitioner. This Court further finds that it is not possible or desirable to go into findings of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction because the major issues have been considered by the District Magistrate on the basis of records which are not denied. 8. Regarding the issue of non-existence of the school of respondent no. 8 on the spot as per Annexure-A, it is found that in the said report, the conclusion that none of the two schools exist on ground is not supported by the discussion in the report that one room with tiled roof was shown as school of the respondent no. 8 whereas no room was found at the place shown to be school of the petitioner. 8 whereas no room was found at the place shown to be school of the petitioner. The villagers, as per that report disclosed that since one year there was no teaching in the school and the place shown as school of the petitioner earlier contained house of "Phoos" belonging to the petitioner. Majority of villagers examined, as per that report, supported the claim of respondent no. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 8 submitted that the area in question is affected by recurring floods every year which often destroys temporary construction of the school of the respondent no. 8 which is also suffering in its working due to non-receipt of grants from the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board due to interim order passed in this case on 10.5.2001 and earlier because of dispute raised by the petitioner before the authorities. 9. Considering the entire materials this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. This Court would not like to make any observation in respect of alternative prayer of the petitioner that no grants be made even to the school of respondent no. 8 due to subsequent report of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure-A. The Bihar Sanskrit Education Board being the competent authority to look into the requirements and interest of Sanskrit education in the State of Bihar, is expected to take proper decision in future, as may be required by law in the larger interest of Sanskrit education system and in keeping the same as efficient and pure as possible. The interim order automatically stands vacated. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.