JUDGEMENT Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. Heard Mr.Madhav Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Purushottam Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 as also Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Board. 2. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash an order dated 4.9.1993 passed by the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) whereby and whereunder, the Secretary to the Board has directed for continuance in the service of Kailash Kumar Singh, an Assistant Teacher in Bhagwati Nandita Sanskrit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kunwari Gola, Purnea by canceling an earlier order passed by the Secretary to the Board dated 12.7.1993. 3. Mr. Rai submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the said school which is one amongst 222 approved/recognized Sanskrit Schools with the facility of payment of salary from the funds of the State Government. He has also placed reliance on an order dated 31.7.1987 passed and issued by the Secretary of the Board approving the services of the petitioner. It has been however the grievance of the petitioner as projected at length in the writ application that the Secretary and the Headmaster of the School by making certain manipulations in the records of the school had created a ground for respondent no. 7 to stake a claim of his being appointed as a genuine teacher by claiming that the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the Managing Committee of the School. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of such manipulation of records, when the respondent no. 7 had staked his claim for seeking approval of his service by the Board, the then Chairman of the Board having issued notice to the petitioner as also the Managing Committee, Secretary and the Headmaster and after perusing the records as also hearing the parties came to a conclusion that it was the petitioner who was entitled to continue as an Assistant Teacher of the School and that there was no merit in the claim of the respondent no. 7 seeking approval on the same post of Teacher occupied by the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that such order of the Chairman of the Board dated 17.2.1986 rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 7 seeking approval on the same post of Teacher occupied by the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that such order of the Chairman of the Board dated 17.2.1986 rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 7 was assailed by the respondent no. 7 in an appeal before the State Government in Appeal No. 22 of 1988 and the Special Director, Secondary Education authorized to dispose of such appeal after issuing notice to the parties and also hearing them had dismissed the appeal of the respondent no. 7 by an order dated 24.4.1989. 5. The petitioner has further highlighted that the order dated 31.7.1987 approving her services by the Board as also the order rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 7 passed by the Chairman of the Board dated 17.2.1988 and the appellate order of the Special Director of the State Government dated 24.4.1989 were jointly assailed by the respondent no. 7 in CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 wherein the petitioner was impleaded as respondent no. 6. The said writ application which was admitted by an order dated 27.6.1991, wherein no interim order was passed in favour of the respondent no. 7 and only the petitioner arrayed as respondent no. 6 in that case was subjected to a condition of continuance and receiving payment of salary subject to the result of the writ application. 6. The petitioner, however, has asserted that during pendency of the said writ application, the respondent no. 7 could obtain a collusive order dated 13.5.1993 passed by the then Secretary of the Board whereunder the proposal of the Managing Committee of the School to terminate the services of the petitioner was approved by the Secretary of the Board with a further direction according to approval of the services of the respondent no. 7 with effect from 25.12.1989. The petitioner as against the aforesaid order dated 13.5.1993 had again moved the Chairman of the Board who having found the order dated 13.5.1993 in favour of the respondent no. 7 to be illegal had directed for its being cancelled and as a result of such direction of the Chairman of the Board, the order in favour of respondent no. 7 dated 13.5.1993 was cancelled by an order dated 12.7.1993. 7 to be illegal had directed for its being cancelled and as a result of such direction of the Chairman of the Board, the order in favour of respondent no. 7 dated 13.5.1993 was cancelled by an order dated 12.7.1993. The grievance of the petitioner for the purposes of this writ application seems to have been surfaced from the impugned notification dated 4.9.1993, whereby and whereunder, as noted above, the order passed on 13.5.1993 was sought to be revived by terminating the services of the petitioner and recognizing/approving the services of the respondent no. 7. 7. . Mr. Roy has also submitted that the impugned order dated 4.9.1993 cannot be sustained on more than one ground, namely, that the Secretary to the Board had passed the order dated 4.9.1993 without even affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that once the same matter was already subjudice before this Court between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 in a writ application in CWJC No. 6691 of 1989, the Secretary to the Board ought to have not taken any steps to change the position of the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 with regard to the same post. It has finally been submitted that the Secretary to the Board has got no power of his own to either approve the services of a teacher recognized Sanskrit School or to accord approval to the proposal for termination of services and as such, the impugned order dated 4.9.1993 cannot be sustained on the ground of jurisdiction. 8. In this case two separate counter affidavits had been filed, one by the Secretary to the Managing Committee and Headmaster of the School i.e. the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and another by the respondent no. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 & 6, the Secretary and the Headmaster of the Managing Committee of the School, a stand has been taken that since the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty in the school, she was placed under suspension by an order dated 16.8.1989 and when she did not submit any explanation, her services were also terminated by the Managing Committee in its resolution dated 24.12.1989 and the consequential order of the Secretary dated 25.12.1989 with effect from 25.12.1989 itself. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 7, it has been stated that after termination of the service of the petitioner on 25.12.1989, the Managing Committee had appointed the respondent no. 7 on 25.12.1989 itself and approval of such appointment of the respondent no. 7 by the Managing Committee was also sought which was ultimately accorded by the Secretary to the Board by an order dated 13.5.1993 while approving the termination of the petitioner which has been only reaffirmed by the impugned order dated 4.9.1993. It has also been explained by the respondent no. 7 in his counter affidavit that the writ application filed by him, CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 as against either the approval of the petitioner or against the order of the Chairman of the Board rejecting approval in favour of the respondent no. 7 and its affirmance in the appellate order of the Special Director cannot be linked with the impugned order of this writ application as they were based on two different cause of actions specially when the said writ petition had also been disposed of by an order dated 28.1.1999 due to subsequent event and order dated 13.5.1993 in favour of the respondent no. 7. 10. During pendency of this writ application which was admitted by the order dated 3.12.1996 for its being heard alongwith CWJC No. 6691 of 1989, this Court had found that there was no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board and its officials and had accordingly passed an order dated 12.8.2009 relevant part whereof reads as follows: "...This Court with a view to decide the issues raised in this writ application would direct the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, to appear in person with the records of Bhagwati Nandita Sanskrit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kurari Tola, Purnea, wherein approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee for terminating the services of the petitioner was approved by the Secretary of the Board under his order dated 13th May, 1993 which order was recalled on 12.7.1993 and was again reviewed on 4.9.1993 by restoring the first order dated 13th May, 1993...." 11. In view of the aforesaid order dated 12.8.2009, a counter affidavit came to be filed by the Secretary to the Board on 20.8.2009 wherein the question raised in this writ application were conveniently ignored by taking a plea of delay and/or alternative remedy. In view of the aforesaid order dated 12.8.2009, a counter affidavit came to be filed by the Secretary to the Board on 20.8.2009 wherein the question raised in this writ application were conveniently ignored by taking a plea of delay and/or alternative remedy. It was also explained that the counter affidavit could not be filed because the counsel who was earlier appearing on behalf of the Board did not take any action despite furnishing of the statement of fact. 12. It is however significant to keep in mind that the other part of the direction of this Court in the order dated 12.8.2009 as with regard to the production of record/file of the Board pertaining to approval of the services of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 7 was not complied on the ground that the records were missing. This Court accordingly on 20.8.2009 had passed the following order: "Heard counsel for the parties at length. Reference may be made to earlier order dated 12.8.2009. Pursuant thereto Mr. Sriniwas Chandra Tiwary, the Secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has appeared in person and would submit that though the concerned file containing the records of Bhagwati Nandita Sanskrit Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kuarigola has been traced out but the same only contains communications or decisions of the authorities of the Board till the year 1987. He has taken a specific stand that none of the three orders dated 13.5.1993, 12.7.1993 and 4.9.1993 relating to this case are at least available in the connected file of the school maintained in the Board, which has been traced out by him and his office. Disappearance of the crucial documents and the records of the Board relating to this case and that too during the pendency of this writ application, which is a subjudice before this Court since 1995, is a very serious matter and would reflect upon the functioning of the Board. In that view of the matter, this Court would give one more chance to Secretary of the Board to find out such records and file an affidavit with regard to the same. The Secretary with such affidavit will remain present again on 7th September, 2009. On the said date in view of the seriousness of the matter the Chairman of the Board shall also remain present. List this case again on 7th September, 2009 at the top of the list. The Secretary with such affidavit will remain present again on 7th September, 2009. On the said date in view of the seriousness of the matter the Chairman of the Board shall also remain present. List this case again on 7th September, 2009 at the top of the list. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Board." 13. Pursuant thereto, the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board have appeared and they have expressed their helplessness in the maintenance of the records in the office of the Board. The Chairman, however, has assured this Court that he has started taking steps for maintaining the records in the proper manner. 14. While this Court would not like to make any further comment on this aspect but then this must be kept in mind that when the matter remained subjudice before this Court ever since 1989 in CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 filed by the respondent no. 7 on the same subject, the respondents were/are under obligation to produce the records as and when directed. 15. Before this Court counsel for the Board very fairly submitted that the Secretary to the Board has been vested with no power to either approve the services of a teacher of a recognized Sanskrit School and that such power under Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) can only be exercised by the Chairman of the Board subject to approval of the Board itself. He, however, had emphasized that either appointment or termination in a recognized/ approved Sanskrit School would not require an examination by this Court, inasmuch as, the Managing Committee taking such decision cannot be made amenable to writ jurisdiction. He would further submit that the impugned order passed by the Secretary of the Board is appealable order before the State Government in terms of Section 24 of the Act and as such, the writ application without exhausting alternative remedy of appeal against the order of the Secretary to the Board either giving approval to the termination of the services of the petitioner or approving the services of the respondent no. 7 is not maintainable. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the plea of alternative remedy raised by the counsel for the respondent Board has to be only noted for its being rejected. 7 is not maintainable. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the plea of alternative remedy raised by the counsel for the respondent Board has to be only noted for its being rejected. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the Secretary of the Board which had the effect of terminating her service and depriving her from getting payment of her salary without any notice/or opportunity to show-cause. The earlier order of the Chairman of the Board as also the Special Director was in favour of the petitioner which was made subject matter of CWJC No. 6691 of 1989. During pendency of the writ application filed by the respondent no. 7 against those orders, the Secretary to the Board had passed an order on 13.5.1993 approving the removal of the petitioner and also recognizing the services of the respondent no. 7 with effect from 25.12.1989. Such order again was passed by the Secretary of the Board without noticing to the petitioner and obviously in teeth of the order of the Chairman of the Board as also the Special Secretary to the State Government. In that view of the matter, once this Court would find that the order passed by the Secretary to the Board in memo no. 302 dated 13.5.1993 was itself in violation of the principle of natural justice and/or by an authority having no jurisdiction, which was again revived by the impugned order of the Secretary to the Board dated 4.9.1993 after rescinding the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Chairman of the Board dated 12.7.1993, the plea of alternative remedy would not stand as a bar in this writ application which has already been admitted in the year 1996 as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain V/s. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 . 17. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ application cannot be thrown overboard on account of alternative remedy, the only logical outcome would be that the impugned order passed by the Secretary to the Board against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no. 7 cannot be sustained. However, as the writ application filed by the respondent no. 7 cannot be sustained. However, as the writ application filed by the respondent no. 7 being CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 has been disposed of on 28.1.1999 by holding that it has become infructuous in view of the order dated 13.5.1993 passed by the Secretary to the Board, this Court would prima facie hold that the entire procedure adopted by the Secretary to the Board in passing the impugned order was illegal. 18. This Court in CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 by its order dated 27.6.1991 had allowed the continuance of the petitioner in service as also entitled to receive payment of her salary by recording her undertaking to refund the payment of her henceforth salary in the event of her failure in the writ application. The earlier orders impugned by the respondent no. 7 in his writ petition were in favour of the petitioner and therefore the Secretary to the Board was required to seek leave of the Chairman, Special Director of the State Government and of this Court before passing any order in favour of the respondent no. 7 on 13.5.1993. Additionally, the order dated 13.5.1993 was also set aside by the Chairman of the Board on 12.7.1993 and such order in favour of the petitioner could not have been recalled by the Secretary without giving her notice and/or opportunity of hearing. 19. That apart, it does not stand to reason as to how could be Secretary to the Board give approval the proposal of the Managing Committee to terminate the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.12.1989 after more than three and half years or accord approval to the service of the respondents with retrospective effect i.e. 25.12.1989 when earlier both the Chairman and the Special Secretary to the Government in their orders had found no merit in the claim of respondent no. 7 leading to filing of CWJC No. 6691 of 1989 by respondent no. 7. The fact that the rules and order leading to the decisions in favour of respondent no. 7 dated 13.5.1993 and 4.9.1993 of the Board are reportedly missing would go a long way to show that the then Secretary of the Board had indulged in hanky-panky business simply to favour the respondent no. 7 who surprisingly was appointed by the Managing Committee on 25.12.1989 on the post alleged vacated by the termination of the petitioner on 25.12.1989 itself. 7 who surprisingly was appointed by the Managing Committee on 25.12.1989 on the post alleged vacated by the termination of the petitioner on 25.12.1989 itself. This aspect in fact would only reflect that the Secretary of the Board and the Managing Committee of the School were bent upon bestowing favour on respondent no. 7 at the cost of Government exchequer and that too in defiance of the order of the State Government through its Special Director and the Chairman of the Board. 20. The submission of Mr. Purushottam Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 that in terms of Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit High School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 as published by the State Government in the notification dated 20.11.1976 would come to the aid of the respondent no. 7 from the order passed by the Secretary of the Board in his favour is only noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as, this Court in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur V/s. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors. reported in 1999(1) PLJR 529 has considered the aspect that no rules have been framed under Section 22(2) of the Act as with regard to the approving/recognizing the services of the recognized Sanskrit School over the payment of salary from the funds of the Board. As a matter of fact, when the Board itself came into existence in the year 1980 through the ordinance which latter become an Act in the year 1981, it would be difficult to conceive of a statutory control over the Non-Governmental Sanskrit High School. The earlier circular/executive instruction including the aforesaid 1976 Rules can therefore have no force of law, much less, provide the base for Secretary to the Board to pass an order at his own level for approving the services of a recognized Sanskrit School. 21. It is thus clear that both the orders dated 13.5.1993 and 4.9.1993 passed by the Secretary to the Board having no such power under the Act, they must be held to be not only wholly without jurisdiction but also manifestly illegal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 21. It is thus clear that both the orders dated 13.5.1993 and 4.9.1993 passed by the Secretary to the Board having no such power under the Act, they must be held to be not only wholly without jurisdiction but also manifestly illegal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Thus both the orders dated 13.5.1993 arid 4.9.1993 being bad on fact and in law are quashed and the matter is remitted to the matter back to the Chairman of the Board who would now hear both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 as also the Managing Committee of the School and would take an independent decision as with regard to the continuation of the petitioner or the respondent no. 7 in service. Such exercise must be completed by the Chairman of the Board after affording opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent no. 7. The Chairman of the Board will be required to not only look into the correctness of the decision of the Managing Committee terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 25.12.1989 but would also examine as to whether the appointment of the respondent no. 7 made on 25.12.1989 itself was in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board. It has to be kept in mind that the post in question if at all had become vacant pn 25.12.1989 when the Managing Committee had allegedly removed the petitioner from service and therefore, was it also possible for the Managing Committee to appoint the respondent no. 7 on the same day as has been claimed in this case and also approved by the Secretary to the Board after a period of four years. Thus, there should be a detailed examination as with regard to the service history of both the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and till such enquiry is completed neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 7 will be entitled to draw the salary from the funds made available by the State Government. 22. Thus, there should be a detailed examination as with regard to the service history of both the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and till such enquiry is completed neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 7 will be entitled to draw the salary from the funds made available by the State Government. 22. Before parting with, this Court must note that it is really disgusting that there are at least 651 recognized Sanskrit Schools in this State in which payment of salary is being made directly from the funds of the State Government through the aegis of the Board and therefore, it is high time that the service condition as envisaged under Section 22(2)(k) with regard to the power of the State Government for framing rules by a notification in the official gazette for the purposes of laying down the "service condition and appointment of the teachers and other staffs of the recognized Sanskrit Schools and toll must be completed so as to rule out the possibility of exercise of arbitrary power by the officials of the Board and office bearers of the Private Managing Committee governing these schools. Once the State Government is making payment of salary of these 429 + 222 Sanskrit schools, it also owes a duty to frame Service condition as envisaged under Section 22(2)(k) of the Act. 23. This Court would, therefore, direct the Principal Secretary to the Human Resources Development Department to ensure that the Rules as envisaged under Section 22(2)(k) of the Act is framed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Secretary and the Chairman of the Board will be under obligation to do the needful by approaching the State Government for framing of the service condition of the appointment of teachers and other staffs of the other recognized Sanskrit Schools and tol and the competent authority of the State Government including the Principal Secretary to the Human Resources Development Department as also the Special Director will do the needful in this regard in keeping with the provisions of the Act. 24. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. There would be, however, no order as to costs.