ORAL ORDER In all these writ applications which have been heard together, the petitioner schools, have assailed the order dated 15.6.2002 passed by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) as also the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the State Government whereby and whereunder the aforementioned order of the Chairman of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board as with regard to the cancellation of the recognition of 86 Sanskrit schools has been affirmed. A further prayer has been made to also quash the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 wherein the State Government while restoring the recognition of fifteen out of eighty-four schools which were earlier cancelled by the order of the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated 15.6.2012 and reiterated by the State Government in its order dated 21.7.2008 has taken a decision to withdraw recognition of rest of sixty-nine schools. A consequential prayer in all these writ applications have also been made that upon quashing of the aforementioned impugned orders dated 15.6.2002, 21.7.2008 and 5.3.2012, not only the status of the petitioners' school of being recognized Sanskrit schools should be restored but a direction be also issued to the Respondents for making payment of arrear and current salary to all the teaching and non-teaching staff w.e.f. 15.6.2002 as was being paid to them prior to 15.6.2002. 2. At the outset it has to be clarified that the entire pleadings in this batch of fourteen writ petitions involving same issue relating to 38 Sanskrit school petitioners has been made by all the parties in C.W.J.C. No. 1727/2009 which is taken to be the leading case for reference of all the documents and the various interim orders passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned orders cancelling recognition of 86 very old recognized Sanskrit schools by one stroke of pen is wholly bad both on fact and in law. In this regard, they have submitted that some of the schools in fact were recognized even 100 years back and in any event, all of them had continued with the recognition for at least 25 years but even their recognition have been cancelled on more ipsi-dixit without considering their individual cases as also prevailing norms existing at the time of grant of their recognition. 4. 4. In this regard, they have also pointed out that these petitioners schools had been recognized in view of the prevalent government policy and thus their de-recognition could have been made only in case of their breach and not on the basis of new guidelines applicable to newly established Sanskrit schools. It has also been highlighted that all the 86 schools de-recognized under the impugned orders were actually found to be fit for its being made Government Sanskrit Schools in the year 1989 when on the other hand, the matter relating to takeover of 429 Sanskrit schools is still pending in the Supreme Court, the respondents have deliberately passed the impugned orders only in order to deprive them of the same benefit of takeover of the schools and consequential payment of salary as in the case of rest of 341 schools. 5. It has also been submitted that there is only one provision for de-recognition of the schools which were recognized prior to constitution of the Board in the year 1979, namely, Rule 6 of fcgkj vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izLohd`fr ,oa 'krZ½ fu;ekoyh] 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the 1993 Rules”) but neither in the show-cause notice were issued to any of the petitioner school in terms of Rule 6 of the 1993 Rules nor even the impugned orders are in consonance with the requirement laid down under the same Rule 6 of the 1993 Rules. They in this regard have also referred to and relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.5.2010 in LPA No. 366 of 2009 (Kalika Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein according to them, the same impugned order has been quashed while restoring the recognition of one of the similarly situated 86 de-recognized Sanskrit schools. 6. Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Board on the other hand has submitted that the power having vested with the Board to grant recognition has also the authority and the duty to de-recognize any Sanskrit school which does not conform to the prescribed requisite conditions for grant of recognition. 6. Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Board on the other hand has submitted that the power having vested with the Board to grant recognition has also the authority and the duty to de-recognize any Sanskrit school which does not conform to the prescribed requisite conditions for grant of recognition. In this regard, he has also explained that the order of the Board and that of the State Government on the basis of which these writ petitions were filed have now to be actually judged in the background of the subsequent order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 which has been passed in terms of the observations and direction given by this Court in these very proceedings. He has also submitted that each of the school has its own individual fact and, therefore, the issue of grant of recognition and consequential de-recognition cannot be decided on any common parameters. 7. Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the State Government in the matter of grant of recognition or de-recognition of Sanskrit schools has a very limited role, inasmuch as, it is the decision of the Board which has to be actually approved or dis-approved on the basis of the materials on record and in the light of the Rules framed by the State Government. He has also submitted that in the present batch of 86 cases, though the requisite condition for grant of recognition to newly established schools as laid down under the 1993 Rules, which is only prospective in nature, cannot be made applicable for judging the eligibility of the continued recognition and consequential de-recognition of 86 Sanskrit schools but then all these schools when they were recognized had to fulfil the conditions as laid down in the Government Resolution of the year 1956 or 1976 and if those conditions were found to be not fulfilled by such schools, the State Government was under no obligation to allow continuance of the recognition of such schools specially when it has to make payment of monthly salary from its to the teaching and non-teaching staff of these recognized private Sanskrit schools. He has also explained that in any view of the matter, the State Government while passing its order dated 5.3.2012 has reconsidered the whole issue in the light of the observations made by this Court in its different interim orders passed in these very proceedings and in that view of the matter the order passed on 5.3.2012 as with regard to the continued de-recognition of 69 of the 84 schools would require no interference of this Court. 8. Before this Court would examine the validity and correctness of the impugned orders in the light of aforesaid submissions, it would be absolutely necessary to take into account the circumstances in which such impugned orders of recognition and consequential derecognition of 86 very old recognized Sanskrit Schools including that of the school petitioners had been passed. It is an admitted position that there were old 429 recognized private sanskrit schools in existance prior to the constitution of Board in 1979 and they had continued to receive patronage and protection of the State of Bihar even before 1947 the year of independence of this country. The old Sanskrit schools in Bihar including a large number of these 429 schools were recognized by the State Government in terms of the prevailing various Government orders, namely;- (i) Government Order no. 2077-E., dated the 29th November, 1915. (ii) Government Resolution no. 1893-E., dated the 19th October, 1915. (iii) Government Order no. 1045, dated the 17th July, 1916. (iv) Government Order no. 293-E, dated the 17th December, 1919. (v) Government Resolution no. 724-E., dated the 30th January, 1929. (vi) Government Resolution no. 4334-E., dated the 27th November, 1934. (vii) Government Order no. 4208-E., dated the 16th December, 1932. (viii) Government Notification no. 2016-E., dated the 9th April, 1935. (ix) Government Order no. 86-E., dated the 4th January, 1936. (x) Government Resolution no. 688-E.R., dated the 24th June, 1936. (xi) Government Notification no. 3849-E., dated the 18th December, 1936. (xii) Government Resolution no. 126-E., dated the 18th January, 1937. (xiii) D.P.I.'s Order, dated the 14th August, 1937. (xiv) Government Resolution no. 3189-E., dated the 23rd December, 1938. (xv) Government Notification no. 3188-E., dated the 23rd December, 1938. (xvi) Government Resolution no. 1702-E., dated the 22nd June, 1939. (xvii) Government Resolution no. 2466-E., dated the 20th October, 1939. (xviii) Government Order no. 671-E.R., dated the 25th July, 1941. (xix) Government Notification no. 1252, dated the 31st July, 1942. (xiv) Government Resolution no. 3189-E., dated the 23rd December, 1938. (xv) Government Notification no. 3188-E., dated the 23rd December, 1938. (xvi) Government Resolution no. 1702-E., dated the 22nd June, 1939. (xvii) Government Resolution no. 2466-E., dated the 20th October, 1939. (xviii) Government Order no. 671-E.R., dated the 25th July, 1941. (xix) Government Notification no. 1252, dated the 31st July, 1942. (xx) Government Notification no. 2296-E., dated the 13th December, 1944. 9. The reference of these Government notifications is found in the “Compendium of the Bihar Sanskrit and Madarsa Education Rules and Regulations” complied by Mr. J.P. Singh, published in September, 1989 by Purnima Prakashan which till date happens to be the only authentic compilation in this state on the subject of education in Sanskrit school. 10. In the Bihar Education Code which was published in the year 1952, the recognized Sanskrit institutions were classified into two categories, namely, (i) Sanskrit Vidyalayas of Tols which were preparing candidates for the Prathma, Madhyama, Shastri and Acharya's examination and (ii) Primary Sanskrit Schools wherein teaching of Sanskrit in addition to departmental and vernacular curriculum up to lower or upper primary section was being made. The control of Sanskrit Vidyalaya was exercised through Bihar Sanskrit Association which was the examination conducting bodies. The concept of recognition in fact had emerged initially only by allowing the students to appear in the examination conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Association which had consisted of a convocation and a Sanskrit council called Sanskrit Parishad and Sanskrit Council respectively each body having same president and secretary. The Parishad was a larger body consisting of 55 members whereas the Sanskrit Council was smaller one consisting of sixteen members only. The functions of the council, amongst others, were:- (a) to conduct Sanskrit examination (b) to issue title and certificates to be signed by the president and the secretary and (c) to advise Government with regard to (i) the course of studies to be followed by various Sanskrit examination and in the various classes of Sanskrit institutions, (ii) the rules to be framed for Sanskrit examination (iii) matters effecting Sanskrit education generally (iv) recognize Tols and to propose for Government rules regarding their recognition. 11. 11. The rules were framed for recognition of Sanskrit Vidyalayas and as per these rules, no Vidyalaya was to be considered eligible to present its candidates at examination of the Sanskrit Association, unless it was recognized by the Association. A Sanskrit Vidyalaya seeking recognition was required to submit an application in the prescribed form. It was in fact in this background that the Government of Bihar in the then Education Department by resolution no. 4124 dated 11.8.1956 had made a detailed provision for recognition of Sanskrit schools wherein amongst other institutions for studies in Sanskrit were classified in three categories corresponding to the three status of the Sanskrit education, primary, secondary and higher known as Sanskrit Pathsalas (Sanskrit Primary School), Sanskrit Vidyalaya including those in which a modernized syllabus was to be introduced (Sanskrit High School) and Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya including those in which modernized syllabus was to be introduced (Sanskrit Colleges). The definition of Sanskrit Pathsalas, Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya was also provided in the aforementioned Government Resolution No. 4124 dated 11.8.1956 and the Bihar Sanskrit Association was vested with full powers to regulate teaching of Sanskrit in this State including grant of recognition to Sanskrit institutions and award of grant-in-aid. Rule 15 thereof being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:- "15. Recognition of Sanskrit institution and award of grant-in-aid- The following are the rules and conditions governing the grants of recognition, award or grant-in-id, etc. A. Recognition of Sanskrit Institutions. – (i) No Sanskrit institution shall be considered eligible for presenting candidates at any examination of the Sanskrit Association as regular students thereof unless it has been recognized by the Association. (ii) No Sanskrit institution, situated outside the State of Bihar Shall be eligible for recognition. (iii) A Sanskrit institution seeking recognition shall submit an application for the same in a prescribed form to the Secretary of the Association through the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned in the case of a Pathshala and the District Inspector of Schools in the case of a Vidyalaya or Mahavidyalaya. The application should reach the Secretary latest by the end of January every year. The application shall be for a particular standard in a particular subject or subjects. The application should reach the Secretary latest by the end of January every year. The application shall be for a particular standard in a particular subject or subjects. General condition of Recognition.- In order to recognized, a Sanskrit institution must fulfill the following conditions:- (i) that it maintains properly all registers required by the department for the purpose of both inspection and auditing; (ii) that it makes necessary arrangeement for the efficient teaching of the subjects up to the standard, for which it seeks recognition or has been recognized; (iii) that it has qualified and competent teachers of the requisite number on its staff; (iv) that it is housed in a suitable building of its own, which is free from objections on sanitary grounds and affords sufficient accommodation; (v) that in case it has no building of its own, the management provides a satisfactory guarantee or proof that it will have an independent building of its own within a reasonable period of time; (vi) that the teachers are paid regularly, according to the prescribed scales of salaries; (vii) that the institution maintains a library, befitting its status and standard of teaching; (viii) that it is open to inspection by the officers and by other authorized inspecting officers of the Education Department; (ix) that it puts in at least five hours of sustaining in teaching and tutorials, etc., every working day. Special conditions of recognition, in addition to conditions laid down above.- I. An institution shall be recognized as the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya on the fulfilment of the following conditions:- (i) that the institution imparts higher instruction in more than one subject to students preparing for Shastri and Acharya examination; (ii) that it has a minimum of five teachers on its staff, all of whom must be at least second class Acharyas; (iii) that it provides for a hostel, a play-ground, a common-room, and a teachers common-room; (iv) that in case it is a non-Government institution, it has a reserve fund of at least Rs. 5,000 in each in a public account or in the form of a property, or security, yielding an annual income of not less than Rs. 500; (v) that it possesses a library having books worth Rs. 2,000. II. 5,000 in each in a public account or in the form of a property, or security, yielding an annual income of not less than Rs. 500; (v) that it possesses a library having books worth Rs. 2,000. II. A Sanskrit institution shall be recognized as a Sanskrit Vidyalaya on the fulfillment of the following special conditions:- (i) that the institution imparts instruction up to Madhyama standard in subjects, prescribed for the examination; (ii) that it has at least three teachers on its staff, all of whom must be at least a second class Shastri; (iii) that it has necessary equipments including a library containing books worth Rs. 1,000 at least, all the text-books and important reference books and periodicals; (iv) that in case it is a non-Government institution, it has a reserve fund of at least Rs. 1,000 in cash or a property yielding an annual income of not less than Rs. 250. B. Rules for the award of grant-in-aid- (i) A Sanskrit institution seeking grant-in-aid during any particular year shall submit an application for the same in a prescribed form to the Secretary, Bihiar Sanskrit Association, so as to reach him not later than the 1st January of the year. (ii) Before recommending an application for grant-in-aid the Secretary of the Sanskrit Association shall have to be satisfied- (a) that the management of the institution is duly constituted; (b) that the staff employed is qualified, competent and adequate in number; (c) that the institution has sufficient financial resources to meet the necessary expenditure; (d) that it is so located as to preclude the possibility of its unhealthy competition with any existing recognized institution of the same class in close proximity; (e) that the accounts and records of the institution are maintained properly; (f) that the amount previously sanctioned as grant-in-aid has been spent over items specified in the memorandum prescribed for the same. (iii) In determining the amount of grant-in-aid, due regard shall be given to- (a) the status of the institution; (b) results at the various examinations, for which the institution is recognized, during three years including the current one; (c) number of students on the rolls and their average daily attendance; (d) extra-curricular activities including physical exercise (such as games, drills, wrestling, etc., debate and Shastrartha and social work, etc.); (e) discipline of the institution; (f) proper maintenance of the following register:- (1) Admission Register (2) Daily Attendance Register (3) Visitor Book (4) Acquaintance Roll of Scholars (5) Printed Book of Transfer Certificate Certificates (6) Transfer Certificate file (7) Attendance Register of teachers (8) Cash Book (9) Acquaintance Roll of teachers (10) A Contingent Register (11) An Order Book (12) Punishment Register (13) A Stock Book (14) A Proceeding Book of Managing Committee (15) A Log Book (16) Teachers' leave register (17) Prize account book (18) Library Stock Book, Issue Register and Account Book (19) Athletic Account Book (20) Head Pandit's Supervision Book (21) Result Book (22) Marks Register and (23) A register of dates of birth. (g) remarks in the inspection reports (h) contribution of enhanced salary by the Government (i) the standard expenses laid down for the institution (j) special needs of the institution; (iv) Ordinarily no grant should be paid to a Sanskrit institution with an average attendance of less than 20 pupils. Exception may be made in special cases where the type or subject of instruction is such as would necessitate admitting only a small number of pupils or would require encouragement with a view to preserve the scientific knowledge of that particular branch of Sanskrit learning." 12. In the aforementioned historical perspective, it has to be also noted that the Government of India had by its resolution no. F34-1/56-A-1 dated 1.10.1956 had appointed Sanskrit Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr. Sunil Kumar Chatterji, Chairman, Legislative Council, West Bengal, Calcutta for considering the question of present state of Sanskrit Education in all its aspects,. In the aforementioned historical perspective, it has to be also noted that the Government of India had by its resolution no. F34-1/56-A-1 dated 1.10.1956 had appointed Sanskrit Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr. Sunil Kumar Chatterji, Chairman, Legislative Council, West Bengal, Calcutta for considering the question of present state of Sanskrit Education in all its aspects,. The terms and reference of the Commission was as follows:- "(i) to undertake a survey of the existing vacilities for Sanskrit Education in Universities and non-University institutions and to make proposals for promoting the study of Sanskrit, including research; and (ii) to examine the traditional, system of Sanskrit Education in order to find out what features from it could be usefully incorporated into the modern system." 13. The Commission in its aforesaid report dated 30.11.1957 submitted to the Government of India in Chapter (iii) while analysing the exact position of teaching undertaken in the State of Bihar, had noted as follows:- "15. In Bihar, the reorganisation of the traditional system of Sanskrit Education has been seriously taken in hand. Like Bengal, Bihar has a Governments-sponsored Association for examining the Tol students. This Association, which is constituted on the lines of a University, holds an annual Convocation for the award of the titles. The total number of Tols affiliated to the Government Sanskrit Examinations is 365. Out of these, reorganized courses have been introduced in 50 aided institutions. The proposed plan of the Government envisages at least one Government Sanskrit School in every District. Twelve such Schools and four Sanskrit Colleges for the four administrative divisions of the State have already been started. The total number of students studying in all these Sanskrit Schools and Colleges is about 11,000. In the general up-grading which is effected, the Principal of a Sanskrit College will be a class II officer, whose salary will go up to Rs. 850. If the manageemnt could give only Rs. 10 to a Sanskrit teacher, the Government would make a contribution of Rs. 50 to bring the salary to the approved scale. The Bihar Government spends Rs. 3 lakhs a year on the traditional Sanskrit Pathasalas. As modern subjects have been introduced in the reorganized courses, the Government is also encouraging the production of Sanskrit books on modern subjects by awarding decent prizes for such publicatins." 14. 50 to bring the salary to the approved scale. The Bihar Government spends Rs. 3 lakhs a year on the traditional Sanskrit Pathasalas. As modern subjects have been introduced in the reorganized courses, the Government is also encouraging the production of Sanskrit books on modern subjects by awarding decent prizes for such publicatins." 14. Needless to say that these 365 Tols affiliated to the Government of Bihar as surveyed by the Commission were part and parcel of the aforesaid recognized 429 sanskrit schools which were already in existance even before any statutory provision was made in Bihar. As a matter of fact, for the first time in the year 1960, after coming into force of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1960, a statutory recognition to the status of Bihar Sanskrit Association, was given by also giving concept of Board of Sanskrit Education (Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad) which was to be constituted by the State Government for exercise of control and superintendence over institutions engaged in teaching of Sanskrit in the State other than Tols imparting education up to Madhyama. In the 1960 Act, “Tol” was defined as recognized Sanskrit institution preparing candidates for Prathma, Madhyama, Shastri and Acharya or any other degree, under Section 4 of the Act and the University was given power to give degree and hold examination. The University was further given power of affiliation but no power of recognition. The senate and syndicate of the University were also not given the power of recognition of Sanskrit schools up to Madhyama standard. Under Section 44 of the Act, the power and duties of Bihar Sanskrit Association were to be exercised by the University or the Board of Sanskrit Education as Government might decide by order in writing. The University, however, was never given authority to grant recognition to Sanskrit institutition up to Madhyama standard and such power had always remain with the Bihar Sanskrit Association. 15. The Bihar Sanskrit Association, however, under Section 44 of the 1960 Act was dissolved and its power and duty were to be exercised and performed by the Board of Sanskrit Education. Subsequently, the State Government vide notification no. 322 dated 24.1.1961 had constituted Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. 15. The Bihar Sanskrit Association, however, under Section 44 of the 1960 Act was dissolved and its power and duty were to be exercised and performed by the Board of Sanskrit Education. Subsequently, the State Government vide notification no. 322 dated 24.1.1961 had constituted Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Though, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1960 was repealed by Act, 21 of 1965, in this subsequent Act also, the definition of Bihar Sanskrit Association, Board of Sanskrit Education (Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad), the recognition and Tol remained more or less the same as in the earlier Act of 1960. In this Act also, the University was not given the power of recognition of Sanskrit school up to Madhyama standard. Although it was given a power of affiliation with previous approval of State Government. Under Section 43(2) of the Act, Tols vidyalayas and Sanskrit High Schools recognized by Bihar Sanskrit Association before 1960 Act were entitled to set up candidates for Madhyama, Shastri and Acharya examination conducted by the University. Any Sanskrit High School which had been recognized by the Board of Sanskrit Education after the commencement of 1965 Act or which was recognized by same association before such commencement of 1965 Act were entitled to send up candidates of Madhyama examination to be conducted by the University. 16. The State Government by a Government Resolution No. 903 dated 27.11.1975 had also taken a decision to merge the traditional old pattern of teaching system with the new system of education by reclassifying the existing Tol vidyalaya by conferring them equivalence of the modern sanskrit school/colleges and the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University in pursuance of the aforementioned Government decision had constituted a Committee for classification of the existing Tol vidyalaya. The Government had also in the meantime constituted its Committee. Pending submission of the report of the Committee, the State Government had issued its order contained in letter no. 1926 dated 24.8.1976, wherein, it was decided that; (a) the teaching in Post Graduation and Research Work in the field of Sanskrit Education shall remain confined in the Post Graduate Department of University till further orders. (b) the courses of Prathma and Madhyama will not be imparted in sanskrit colleges. (c) in the Tol vidyalaya having single teacher, teaching will be confined only up to Prathma level and no new admission would be made in such Tol Vidyalaya. (b) the courses of Prathma and Madhyama will not be imparted in sanskrit colleges. (c) in the Tol vidyalaya having single teacher, teaching will be confined only up to Prathma level and no new admission would be made in such Tol Vidyalaya. (d) in other sanskrit schools having more than one teacher, no teaching will be imparted beyond Madhyama level. 17. The said Government order dated 24.8.1976 was to come into force with effect from 1.1.1977 and was to be strictly implemented through the University and the Assistant Director of Sanskrit Education. In fact, the State Government by its resolution dated 18.10.1976 which was published in the Bihar Gazette on 16.2.1977, had laid down the terms and conditions for grant of recognition to the non-governmental Sanskrit institutions up to Madhyama standard which as noted above was kept beyond the purview of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay Act, 1960, its repealed Act, Act 29 of 1965 as also Bihar State University Act, 1976. In the aforementioned resolution dated 18.10.1976, the Government for the first time in addition to what was said in the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 had prescribed a detailed guideline for grant of recognition relevant portion whereof being necessary for the purpose of all these writ applications, is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr izfrfyfi la0 vkbZ@o 9@76-2291&f'k0fnukad 18 vDVwcj]1976 ¼fcgkj xtV dk iwjd fnukad 16 Qjojh] 1977½ fo"k; %& vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr dh 'kÙksZ ¼i<+k x;k ladYi la[;k vkbZ@t 2-01@74&f'k0&903] fnukad 27 uoEcj] 1975 dk fcUnq 9½ laLd`r fo|ky;ksa dh Lohd`fr dh 'kÙksZ fu/kkZfjr ugha jgus ds dkj.k fo|ky;ksa dh LFkkiuk lqfu;ksftr :i ls ugha gks jgh gSA fo|ky;ksa esa Hkwfe Hkou f'k{k.k miLdj vkfn dh visf{kr la[;k fu/kkZfjr ugha jgus ds dkj.k ,sls fo|ky; Hkh lEc)rk izkIr djus esa l{ke gks tkrs gS] tks oLrqr% laxfBr ,oa fodkl'khy ugha gSa izdVr% f'k{k.k ds Lrj ,oa fo|ky; dh izcU/k O;oLFkk ij bldk izfrdwy vlj iM+k gSA mi;qZDr fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, jkT; ljdkj us bl ij xEHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj dj fofHkUu dksfV ds vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr iznku djus gsrq fuEukfdr 'kÙksZ fu/kkZjr dh gS %& laLd`r fo|ky; ds fy, izLohd`fr ds fu;e 1- izkFkfed laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izFke oxZ ls "k"B oxZ rd½ izfrcU/k la[;k ¼1½ & fo|ky; Hkou rFkk Hkwfe ¼d½ xzkeh.k {ks= ds fy, de ls de nks dV~Bk vkSj 'kgjh {ks= ds fy, ,d dV~Bk Hkwfe fo|ky; ds uke ls fucfU/kr gksuh pkfg, A ¼[k½ fo|ky; dks de&ls&de nks izdks"Bksa dk Hkou gksuk pkfg,A izfrcU/k la[;k ¼2½ & fo|ky; ds ikl dqlhZ] Vscqy vkfn vko';d midj.k gksuk vfuok;Z gSA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼3½ & ¼d½ fo|ky; esa de&ls&de nks f'k{kd gksaxs ftuesa ,d iz/kkuk/;kid ,oa ,d lgk;d v/;kid gksaxsA iz/kkuk/;kid ds fy, U;wure ;ksX;rk] vk;qosZn foKku NksM+dj laLd`r fo"k; esa fdlh ,d 'kkL= esa 'kkL=h dh gksxh vkSj lgk;d v/;kid dh ;ksX;rk vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa ds lkFk e/;ek dk rRled{k ijh{kk gksxhA ¼[k½ fo|ky; esa Nk=ksa ds U;wure la[;k rhl gksxhA Nk= la[;k esa o`f) gksus ij vko';drkuqlkj f'k{kdksa dh la[;k c<+k;h tk ldrh gSA mDr ;ksX;rk ds f'k{kdkas ds fy, ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr osrueku mUgsa fn;k tk,xkA 2- e/; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼lIre&v"Ve oxZ½ izfrcU/k la[;k ¼1½ fo|ky; Hkou vkSj Hkwfe ¼d½ xzkeh.k {ks= esa de&ls&de ik¡p dV~Bk vkSj 'kgjh {ks= esa nks dV~Bk Hkwfe fo|ky; ds uke ls fucfU/kr gksuh pkfg,A ¼[k½ fo|ky; dks de&ls&de pkj izdks"Bksa dk Hkou gksuk pkfg,A izfrcU/k la[;k ¼2½ & vko';drkuqlkj dqlhZ] Vscqy] csap vkfn midj.k dk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼3½&¼d½ fo|ky; esa de&ls&de pkj f'k{kd gksxs ftuesa laLd`r fo"k; ds ,d 'kkL=h ijh{kksÙkh.kZ iz/kkuk/;kid gksxs vkSj 'ks"k rhu lgk;d v/;kid gksaxsA ,d vkns'kiky gksxkA rhu lgk;d f'k{kdksa esa ,d mPprj ek/;fed ;k rRled{k ;ksX;rk dk f'k{kd gksxkA 'ks"k nks f'k{kd vk/kqfud fo"k; ds lkFk e/;ek ijh{kksÙkh.kZ gksxs ftuesa ,d xf.kr fo"k; ysdj e/;ek ;k rRled{k ijh{kksÙkh.kZ gksxkA ¼[k½ fo|ky; esa Nk=ksa dh U;wure la[;k pkyhl gksxhA Nk= la[;k esa o`f) gksus ij vko';drkuqlkj f'k{kdksa dh la[;k c<+k;h tk ldrh gSA bl fo|ky; esa izFkek oxZ ds vfrfjDr iape vkSj "k"V oxZ dh Hkh i<+kbZ gksxhA mDr ;ksX;rk ds f'k{kdksa vkSj vkns'kiky ds fy, ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r osrueku mUgsa fn;k tk,xkA 3- ek/;fed laLd`r fo|ky; ¼uoe~ n'ke~ oxZ½ izfrcU/k la[;k ¼1½ fo|ky; Hkwfe ,oa Hkou & ¼d½ xzkeh.k {ks= esa fo|ky; Hkou] [ksy&dwn vkfn ds fy, de ls de ,d ch?kk Hkwfe rFkk 'kgjh {ks= esa nl dV~Bk Hkwfe fo|ky; ds uke fucfU/kr gksuh pkfg,] tgk¡ fo|ky; Hkou vofLFkr gksxkA ¼[k½ fo|ky; dks de&ls&de N% izdks"Bksa dk bZaV dk cuk viuk Hkou gksuk pkfg,A izdks"Bksa dk vkdkj fuEukafdr gksxk %& ¼1½ 14 X 10 dk izdks"B & nks dk;kZy; ,oa iqLrdky; ds fy, ¼2½ 18 X 12 dk izdks"B & pkj oxZ dk;Z ds fy, ¼x½ dk;kZy;] iqLrdky; vkSj oxZ dk;Z ds fy, okafNr miLdjksa dk gksuk vko';d gSA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼2½ & fo|ky; dks ,d iqLrdky; gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA iqLrdky; esa de ls de ,d gtkj :i;s dh iqLrdsa gksaxh ftuesa ikB;xzaFk vkSj Nk=ksi;ksxh iqLrd vko';d gksxhA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼3½& vkdfLed vko';drk ds fy, iz/kkuk/;kid ,oa fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr ds la;qDr uke ls lkoZtfud [kkrs esa de&ls&de ,d gtkj :i;s cSad esa tek jgsaxsA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼4½&¼d½ u;s fo|ky;ksa dh izLrhod`fr dh ;g ,d vko';d 'kÙkZ gksxh fd fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr ds ikl jde lizek.k gks ftlls fcuk jktdh; vuqnku ds Hkh de&ls&de rhu o"kksZ rd fo|ky; dks pyk;k tk ldsA rhu o"kksZ dh Nk= la[;k] ijh{kkQy vkSj lapkyu dh izxfr ns[kdj gh jktdh; vuqnku nsus ij fopkj fd;k tk,xkA ¼[k½ fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr esa de&ls&de ,d ljdkjh inkf/kdkjh dk gksuk vko';d gksxk vkSj izR;sd rhu o"kZ ij izcU/k lfefr dk iqu% laxBu gqvk djsxkA ¼x½ fo|ky; dks izLohd`fr fn, tkus ds iwoZ v/;kidksa dh vLFkk;h fu;qfDr ds fy, fo|ky; izcU/k lfefr ds }kjk laxfBr ,d mi lfefr gksxh ftlesa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ifj"kn~@dkes'oj flag njHkxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk izfrfu;ksftr ,d fo'ks"kK jgsxkA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼5½ & LFkk;h fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy, ;ksX;rk] osrueku] in vkfn ds fooj.k ds lkFk jkT; ds fdlh izfl) lekpkji= esa foKkiu nsuk vko';d gksxkA izkFkfedrk ds Øe esa rhu uke fu;qfDr lEcU/kh izLrko ds lkFk izcU/k lfefr] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ifj"kn~@dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; ds ikl HkstsxhA ogk¡ ls vuqeksnu ds ckn gh fu;qfDr iDdh le>h tk,xhA izLrko ds lkFk izkIr vkosnu i=] foKkiu dh dfVax] izkfFkZ;ksa dh ;ksX;rk fooj.kh Hkh Hkstuk vko';d gksxkA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼6½& 'kghj {ks= ,oa ?kuh vkcknh ds xzkeh.k {ks= dks NksM+dj ik¡p ehy ds Hkhrj nks ek/;fed laLd`r fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr ugha nh tk,xhA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼7½& fo|ky; esa i<+usokys Nk=ksa dh U;wure la[;k lkB gksxh vkSj mifLFkfr lÙkj izfr'kr vko';d gksxhA izfrcU/k la[;k ¼8½ & fo|ky; esa oxZ dk;Z ,oa ikB~; fo"k;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, iz/kkuk/;kid dks NksM+dj lkekU;r% f'k{kdksa dh la[;k N% gksxhA iz/kkuk/;kid vkSj f'k{kdksa dh ;ksX;rk fuEukafdr gksxh %& ¼d½ iz/kkuk/;kid & bl in ds fy, izkfFkZ;ksa dks laLd`r fo|ky; esa i<+k;s tkusokys laLd`r fo"k;ksa esa ls ¼vk;qosZn dks NksM+dj½ fdlh ,d fo"k; esa vkpk;Z ijh{kk esa U;wure f}rh; Js.kh esa mÙkh.kZ gksuk rFkk fdlh ek/;fed Lrj ds fo|ky; esa de&ls&de ik¡p o"kksZ dk 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko gksuk vko';d gksxkA f'k{k.k ,oa iz'kklu lEcU/kh fo'ks"kkuqHko izkIr fo}kuksa ds fy, fo'ks"k fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼[k½ lgk;d f'k{kd & laLd`r fo"k;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vkpk;Z ijh{kksÙkhZ.k vuqHkoh f'k{kdksa dh la[;k rhu gksxhA ¼x½ vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vuqHkoh Lukrd f'k{kdksa dh la[;k rhu gksxhA ¼?k½ f'k{kdsÙkj deZpkjh & fo|ky; esa ,d fyfid gksxk tks vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa ds lkFk e/;ek ;k rRled{k ijh{kksÙkh.kZ gksxkA ¼M-½ vkns'kiky ¼lk{kj½ & ,d bu fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr osrueku fn;k tk,xkA vH;qfDr & u;s fo|ky;ksa dks izLohd`fr nh tkus dk ;g rkRi;Z dnkfi ugha gksxk fd mUgsa ljdkjh vuqnku izkIr gks tk;A fo|ky; dh larks"ktud izxfr ns[kus ds ckn bl ckr dh ps"Vk dh tk,xh fd mUgsa vuqnku izkIr gks fdUrq ;g jkT; dh foÙkh; fLFkfr ij gh lEHko gksxkA** 18. It has to be noted that though in the aforementioned government resolution dated 18.10.1976, provision for recognition of Uchchatar Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya (11th & 12th class) as also Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya-Shashtri (three years) were also prescribed but then they will have no relevance for the purpose of all these writ applications, inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that the all the 86 de-recognized Sanskrit schools by the impugned orders including the petitioners' schools herein are only either Prathmik or Prathmik Sah Madhya or Madhya Vidyalaya. 19. The State Government having prescribed the rules of recognition by the aforementioned executive instructions dated 18.10.1976 had also framed service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Bihar Non-Governmental Sanskrit High Schools by a notification dated 20.11.1976 wherein elaborate provisions were made for regulating the service condition of the employees both teaching and non-teaching of the Non-Governmental Sanskrit High Schools which need not be dealt in detail on account of the issue confined in these writ applications relating to recognition/de-recognition of the 86 Sanskrit schools. The Bihar State University Act, 1976 which was came into force with effect from 31.12.1976 had repealed Sanskrit University Act, 21 of 1965 while confining the jurisdiction of the Sanskrit University to colleges imparting education above Madhyama standard. 20. The present Board had its origin only in the year 1979 when initially by an ordinance, it was constituted and after keeping the Board alive through a series of ordinances, Bihar Act 31 of 1982, had ultimately been given a permanence. Under Section 3 of the 1982 Act, the provisions for establishment of the Board was made which in fact was created for providing the constitution of an Autonomous Board for development and better supervision of Sanskrit education up to Madhyama Standard. 21. It is very significant to note herein is that under Section 25(4) of the Act, the recognized schools and Tols schools prior to coming into force of the 1982 Act, were deemed to have been recognized under the Act until the expiration of the period of recognition subject, however, to the power of the Board to withdraw recognition in accordance with he provisions of the Act. Section 25, therefore, is quite crucial for the issues involved in this writ application and is quoted hereinbelow:- "25. Section 25, therefore, is quite crucial for the issues involved in this writ application and is quoted hereinbelow:- "25. Dissolution of existing Bihar Sanskrit Education Board.- (1) With effect from the date, the Board is established under section 3, the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board constituted under Government notification no.322, dated 24th January, 1961 shall be dissolved and the assets and properties owned or possessed by the said Board shall vest in the Board established under this Ordinance. (2) All legal proceedings or remedies instituted or enforceable by or against the former Bihar Sanskrit Education Board or its servants before the commencement of this Ordinance may be continued or enforced, as the case may be. (3) All officers or other persons in the employ of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board immediately, before the commencement of this ordinance, shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Board established under this Ordinance and they shall hold their offices or services therein on the same terms and on the same remuneration as previously until their remuneration or others terms and conditions of service are revised or altered by the Board under any rule or regulation made in this behalf. (4) All recognized Sanskrit Schools and Tols shall be deemed to have been recognized under this Ordinance until the expiration of the period of recognition subject however to the power of the Board to withdraw recognition, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (5) All syllabi, course of studies and text-books in force shall. until other provision is made under this Ordinance, continue to be followed." 22. As would be noted above, the legislature while giving deemed recognition to all the earlier recognized Sanskrit schools and Tols prior to enforcement of 1982 Act had also envisaged that the Board shall have also the power to withdraw recognition in accordance with the provisions made in the Act. Such provisions for withdrawal of recognition can be found under Section 6 while defining the power and function of the Board, which reads as follows:- "6. Powers and functions of the Board.- (1) It shall be the duty of the Board to advise the State Government on all matters relating to Sanskrit Education up to Madhyama Standard. Such provisions for withdrawal of recognition can be found under Section 6 while defining the power and function of the Board, which reads as follows:- "6. Powers and functions of the Board.- (1) It shall be the duty of the Board to advise the State Government on all matters relating to Sanskrit Education up to Madhyama Standard. (2) Subject to the provision of this Ordinance and the regulations and rules made thereunder, the Board shall have the power to direct, supervise and control Sanskrit Education up to Madhyama Standard in the State and in particular have the following powers- (a) To grant recognition to Sanskrit Schools and Tools up to Madhyama Standard, with the prior approval of the State Government and within the number fixed by the State Government, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf; (b) To withdraw recognition of recognized Sanskrit institutions in accordance with such rules made in this behalf; (c) To maintain a register of recognized Sanskrit Schools and Tols; (d) To provide by regulation the syllabi, the course of studies and the books to be studied in recognized Sanskrit Schools and Tols for Examinations instituted by the Board up to Madhyama Standard; (e) To undertake, if necessary, with the prior approval of the State Government, the preparation, publication, or sale of text-books and other books for use in Sanskrit Schools and Tols; (f) To maintain and publish from time to time list of books approved for use in Sanskrit Schools and Tols for examinations instituted by the Board and to remove the name of any such book from any such list; (g) To institute and conduct different Sanskrit examinations up to Madhyama standard and such other examinations as it may think fit and make regulations in this behalf; (h) To publish results of the examination instituted by the Board and to award certificates, prizes and scholarships in this behalf; (i) To provide by regulation the rates of remuneration to be paid to the paper-setters, moderators, tabulators, examiners, invigilators, Centre Superintendent, Supervisors and others employed in connection with the examination instituted by the Board and the fees to be paid by candidates for such examinations; (j) To grant permission to candidate to appear at an examination up to Madhyama Standard instituted by the Board and to refuse or withdraw such permission in accordance with such regulation as may be made in this behalf; (k) To administer the Sanskrit Education Fund; (l) To institute and administer such provident funds as may be prescribed; (m) To prepare regulations regarding service conditions of the employees of the Board; (n) Subject to the rules made under this Ordinance to constitute and dissolve the managing committee of the Sanskrit Schools and Tols; (o) To perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the State Government." 23. It was only after the formation of the Board and seggregation of the control over the existing Tol Vidyalaya from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University that in the year 1981, the State Government by its order contained in letter no. It was only after the formation of the Board and seggregation of the control over the existing Tol Vidyalaya from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University that in the year 1981, the State Government by its order contained in letter no. 204 dated 2.3.1981 had classified the existing 244 old Tol Vidyalayas into six categories and as this decision of the Government will also have a vital bearing on the issue involved in the batch of these writ applications, the same is also quoted hereinbelow:- ^^laLd`r Vksyksa dk oxhZdj.k i=kad&vkbZ@o9&071@78 f'k0&204 fcgkj ljdkj] f'k{kk foHkkx izs"kd] Jh ujsUnz iky flag ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkjA lsok esa] dqylfpo] dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky;] njHkaxk lfpo] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ifj"kn~] iVukA iVuk] fnukad 2-3-81 fo"k;& laLd`r Vksyksa dk oxhZdj.Ka egksn;] funsZ'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd jktdh; ladYi vkbZ] t2&01@74&f'k0 903 fnukad 27-11-75 ds }kjk jkT; ljdkj us laLd`r f'k{kk dh izkphu ,oa uohu i}fr;ksa dks ,d djus rFkk izkphu i}fr ls py jgs xSj ljdkjh laLd`r fo|ky;ks vFkkZr Vksy fo|ky;ksa dh led{krk vk/kqfud laLd`r fo|ky;ksa@egkfo|ky;ksa ds :i esa fu/kkZfjr dj mUgsa vk/kqfud fo|ky;ksa@egkfo|ky;ksa ds :i esa ifjofrZr djus dk izLrko fln~/kkUr :i esa Lohdkj fd;k FkkA bl dze esa Vksy fo|ky;ksa ds oxhZdj.k ds fy, dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; }kjk vius Lrj ls ,d lfefr xfBr dh xbZ FkhA b/kj foHkkxh; Lrj ij Hkh blh dk;Z ds fy, ,d nwljh lfefr xfBr dh xbZ FkhA nksuksa lfefr;ksa dh vuq'kalkvksa ij xaHkhjrk iwoZd fopkj djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj us Vksy fo|ky;ksa dk oxhZdj.k layXu lwph ds vuqlkj djus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh gS] ftldk lkjka'k uhps vafdr gSA& ¼1½ laLd`r egkfo|ky; ¼'kkL=h Lrj½ 6 ¼2½ laLd`r egkfo|ky; ¼mi'kkL=h Lrj½ 14 ¼3½ laLd`r mPp fo|ky; ¼e/;ek Lrj½ 67 ¼4½ laLd`r e/; fo|ky; ¼oxZ 6 ls 8½ 35 ¼5½ izkFkfed lg e/; laLd`r fo|ky; 63 ¼6½ izkFkfed laLd`r fo|ky; 59 ;ksx 244 2- fo'ofo|ky; lfefr rFkk foHkkxh; lfefr dh vuq'kalkvksa dh tkap ls ,slk ekyqe iM+rk gS fd dqN Vksy fo|ky;ksa dk mRdze.k vk/kqfud fo|ky; ds :i esa igys gh fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj dqN Vksy fo|ky;ksa dk foy;u nwljs fo|ky;ksa esa fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk mudk vfLrRo gh lekIr gks x;k gSA ,alh ifjfLFkfr esa ,sls fo|ky;ksa ds laca/k esa vkf/kdkfjd tkaap ds ckn vafre fu.kZ; lalwfpr fd;k tk,xkA 3- egkfo|ky; ds Lrj dh laLd`r laLFkkvksa dks ekU;rk iznku djus dh 'kfDr fcgkj jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e ,oa v/;kns'k ds v/khu dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; esa fufgr gSA iqu% e/;ek Lrj rd dh laLd`r laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr nsus dh 'kfDr fcgkj jkT; laLd`r f'k{kk ifj"kn~ esa fufgr gSa ,alh ifjfLFkfr esa dkes'oj flag njHkaxk laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; rFkk fcgkj jkT; laLd`r f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk izlaxksfpr Vksy fo|ky;ksa dh layXu lwph esa vafdr vk/kqfud laLd`r laLFkk ds :i esa ekU;rk@izLohd`fr iznku dh tk,xhA pqafd jktdh; ladYi la[;k 903 fnukad 27-11-75 esa izFkek ls ysdj vkpk;Z rd dh f'k{kk ds fy, fo|ky; vkSj egkfo|ky; nks izdkj dh laLFkk,a j[kus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS] vr% ftu Vksy fo|ky;ksa dks mi&'kkL=h Lrj ds egkfo|ky;ksa ds :i esa ekU;rk nsus dh Lohd`fr nh x;h gS muesa e/;ek Lrj dh i<+kbZ ugha gks ldsxhA mUgsa vko';drkuqlkj 'kkL=h Lrj ds egkfo|ky; esa fodflr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 4- mi;qZDr vk/kkj ij laLd`r Vksyks dk oxhZdj.k fnukad 1-4-80 ls izHkkoh ekuk tk,xkA mDr frfFk ls mDr Lrj dh laLFkk ds fy, fu/kkZfjr la[;k ds Hkhrj fofgr vgZrk ds fof/kor fu;qDr ,oa vuqeksfnr f'k{kdksa ,oa f'k{kdsRrj LVkQ dks jktdh; ladYi la[;k 1151 fnukad 26-12-80 ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr osrueku ,oa eagxkbZ HkRrk ns; gksxkA 5- funs'kd ¼mPp f'k{kk½] fcgkj@fo'ks"k funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½] fcgkj dks lwfpr fd;k x;k gSA fo'oklHkktu g0@& ujsUnz iky flag ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj Kkikad 204 iVuk fnukad 2-3-81 izfrfyfi funs'kd ¼mPp f'k{kk] fcgkj@fo'ks"k funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ fcgkj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA g0@& ujsUnz iky flag ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpo] f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj** 24. As would be evident, the Government by the aforementined decision dated 2.3.1981 had taken a decision to make full payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the re-classified recognized Tol Vidyalayas in terms of the Government Resolution No. 1151 dated 26.12.1980, wherein, the State Government had extended benefit of payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching employees within the prescribed number of posts and as such, the concept of recognition of Sanskrit schools also had merged with the benefit of payment of salary to the approved teaching and non-teaching employees whose appointments were made by the Managing Committee and approval was accorded by the controlling body i.e. Board. It is in this way that recognition of a Sanskrit institutions also confered benefit of payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching employees, inasmuch as, the Government for this purpose had also not only fixed the qualification but also the number of posts for such recognized Sanskrit schools and Madarsas as would be evidenced from the Government Resolution no. 572 dated 29.6.1981 (at page-159 of the Compendium) wherein the existing Sanskrit schools were classified into four categories, namely, (i) Prathmik Sanskrit Vidyalaya up to class one to five class, (ii) Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya up to six to eight class, (iii) Prathmik-Sah-Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya up to one to eight class and (iv) Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya from class six to class ten. The prescribed teaching posts for teachers under the staffing pattern dated 29.6.1981 was, two for Prathmik Sanskrit Vidyalaya, four for Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, six for Prathmik-Sah-MadhyaVidyalaya and seven for Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya. The Government in fact has been till date literally following its Resolution dated 29.6.1981 in letter and spirit while releasing fund for payment of salary of the recognized Sanskrit schools. 25. It is also not in dispute that the State of Bihar had since long adopted a policy in terms whereof payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized sanskrit schools/Tol Vidyalayas had all along been made by it. 25. It is also not in dispute that the State of Bihar had since long adopted a policy in terms whereof payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized sanskrit schools/Tol Vidyalayas had all along been made by it. In fact, the report of the Sanskrit Commission quoted above of the year 1957 by itself would be proof of such Government grant-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of sanskrit school whcih was later on expanded by way of deficit grant in the matter of payment of salary and ultimately led to bearing of the entire financial burden of payment of salary from the fund of the State as can be also evidenced from the government letter dated 17.5.1975 wherein it was made clear that the State Government had undertaken the entire financial burden of payment of salary of the teachers in terms of the revised scale of pay which was to be implemented with effect from 1.4.1973 and such burden was to be shared in respect of sanskrit schools which were approved and recognized as on 31.3.1973. 26. By a separate notification dated 11.8.1976 published in the Bihar Gazette, a list of 17 Government Sanskrit High Schools and 108 non-Government recognized Sanskrit High Schools were circulated. The State Government had also informed the Accountant General Bihar by letter dated 4.5.1978 with regard to fixation of pay scale of teaching and non-teaching employees of both Governmental and non-governmentan Sanskrit High Schools and Madarsas as on 4.5.1978 which was also revised by letter no. 298 dated 12.3.1979 w.e.f. 1st April, 1978. By yet another separate letter dated 12th March, 1979, the State Government had also laid down certain more terms and conditions with regard to appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the non-Governmental recognized Sanskrit Schools. By reason of the said letter, the State Government had further directed that the dearness allowance which was being paid to the Government Servants would also be paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of Non-Governmental recogtnized Sanskrit High Schools. 27. It may also be usefully added here that Scale of Pay and the D.A. as and when revised had also been made applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized Sanskrit High Schools alike in the Governmenta Schools. 27. It may also be usefully added here that Scale of Pay and the D.A. as and when revised had also been made applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized Sanskrit High Schools alike in the Governmenta Schools. Thus after the letter of the State Government dated 2.3.1981 envisaging full payment of salary and allowances to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the recognized Sanskrit Schools which by the year 1983 were 442 in number (including 244 Tol Vidyalaya), it was the Government which was bearing the entire financial burden for payment of salary and thus recognition of Sanskrit school got linked and in fact became a licence for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the recognized Sanskrit schools from the funds of the State Government made available to the Board. 28. As a matter of fact, after the State Government had implemented the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee in relation to the teaching and non-teaching employees for the aforesaid 442 Non-Governmental Sanskrit Schools including 224 Tol Vidyalayas of different types recognized as Sanskrit Schools, a proposal was examined by the State Government on 2.12.1987 for taking over control and management of these 442 recognized private sanskrit schools by taking them into fold of Govenment Schools. The matter was accordingly placed before the Council of Ministers and a decision was taken that an ordinance would be promulgated for takingover management and control of these 442 recognized private sanskrit schools. Followed by the aforementined Cabinet decision and an inventory was also made of all such schools in terms of the Government letter no. 614 dated 28.12.1987 issued by the Special Secretary of Education Department to the Collectors of different districts. It was, however, only on 25.2.1989 that the matter was again placed before the Council of Ministers seeking approval to the proposal of takingover of 429 out of 442 recognized sanskrit schools and in the said proposal, it was stated that there had been certain disputes with regard to the remaining 13 schools. The Council of Minsiters gave its approval to the said proposal of takingover of the 429 recognized sanskrit schools. 29. On 18.12.1989, the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power conferred under Article 213 of the Constitution of India had promulgated an ordinance known as Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit School (Takingover of Managment and Control) Ordinance, 1989 (ordinance 32/1989). The Council of Minsiters gave its approval to the said proposal of takingover of the 429 recognized sanskrit schools. 29. On 18.12.1989, the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power conferred under Article 213 of the Constitution of India had promulgated an ordinance known as Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit School (Takingover of Managment and Control) Ordinance, 1989 (ordinance 32/1989). This ordinance had contained a schedule of 429 sanskrit schools and all that is important to be noted for the purpose of these cases is an admitted position that in the list of all the 429 schools the names of these 86 de-recognized schools under the impugned orders were also included. The said ordinance was replaced by Bihar Ordinance No. 7/90 and Bihar Ordinance No. 14/90 and in fact seven ordinances in all were promulgated till the last one, being the 1992 3rd ordinance which had expired on 1.5.1992. 30. All these ordinances had contained Section 3(1) providing that with effect from the date of its enforcement management and control of 429 Sanskrit Schools mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Ordinance stood vested in the State Government. Section 3(2) further provided that all assets and properties of all the Sanskrit schools mentioned in Sub-Section (i) of Section 3 or of the governing body, or the managing commitee, whether movable or immovable including lands, buildings, documents, books and registers, cash balance, reserve fund, capital investment, furniture, fixtures and other things shall on and from the date of taking over stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 4 of the Ordinance provided that with effect from the date of vesting of all such Sanskrit Schools, the services of all those teaching and non-teaching staff of the said schools mentioned in Schedule-1 who had been appointed permanently/temporarily against sanctioned posts in accordance with the prescribed standard and staffing pattern prescribed by the State Government prior to the promulgation of the said Ordinance, shall stand transferred to the State Government with whatsoever designation they held. 31. It was further provided in the ordinance that services of those teachingand non-teaching employees who were in excss of the sanctioned strength or do not possess the necessary fitness and/or qualifications, would automatically stand terminated. 31. It was further provided in the ordinance that services of those teachingand non-teaching employees who were in excss of the sanctioned strength or do not possess the necessary fitness and/or qualifications, would automatically stand terminated. Section 4(2) of the said Ordinancehad also provided that the teachers of the Sanskrit Schools taken over by the State Government shall be entitled to the same pay, allowances and pension etc. as are admissible to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the taken over secondary schools of Bihar. Under Chapter-III of the Ordinance, the management and control of taken over Sanskrit schools was delegated to the Director and other officers working under him. It further envisaged constitution of a new managing committee for the aforesaid taken over schools and in the managing committees, apart from the Headmaster of the School and a teachers' representative of the concerned school, representation was also given to one member of the Legislature, either of Vidhan Parishad and the person who had made donation or contribution for the development and establishment of the school (to be nominated by the State Government). It may also be stated that the mode of constitution of new managing committees under the ordinance was entirely different to the earlier managing committees which were earlier controlling the affairs of these 429 Sanskrit Schools. Though the management of 429 Sanskrit schools so taken over by ordinance 32 of 1989 were to be made in the manner prescribed by the Rules but such Rules were not framed by the State of Bihar till the continuance of the ordinances one after another till 30.4.1992. 32. In this regard, it is significant to mention that after the three Ordinances, namely, Bihar Ordinance No. 32/89, 7/90 and 14/90 had remained in force till 1.5.1990, Ordinance No. 21/90 dated 12.8.90 was published in the Bihar Gazette on 13.8.1990 in which there was a radical departure wherein the provision of earlier Section 3 & 4 of the Ordinance were given altogether different look. In Ordinance no. In Ordinance no. 21/90, a proviso was added in Section 3 of the Act in terms whereof State was empowered to make enquiry with regard to the existence and other matters relating to the takeover of 429 sanskrit schools and interms thereof, State was empowered to get an enquiry made through the Collector of the district and in the event, it was found in such enquiry that any of the schools was non-existing, such school could be denotified from the schedule of 429 sanskrit schools. Section 4 of the Ordinance 21/90 had however provided that teaching and non-teaching staff of the taken over schools will no longer remain in the services of the School till determination of their cases by the State Government on the basis of an enquiry to be held in terms thereof. Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act had provided that the State would constitute an Expert Committee which was to make enquiry with reference to bio-datas of all teaching and non-teaching staff and also make an enquiry with regard to their qualification, experience and other relevant factors and submit a report to the State of Bihar. It was further provided that the said committee would also make an enquiry regarding implementation of the reservation policy of the State in the matter of appointment so far as it related to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and backward classes. Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the said Ordinance had employed the State of Bihar to consider on the basis of the said report as to whether the services of any teacher should be taken over or not. After Ordinance No. 21/90, six more ordinances were promulgated till the last ordinance had lapsed by efflux of time on 30.4.1992. 33. The necessity of giving this detailed account of the Ordinance No.32 dated 18.12.1989 and its replacement Ordinances up to 30.4.1992 is only to show the extent of direct governmental control during the during the period such Ordinances had remained in existence with the resultant consequence of all these 429 Sanskrit Schools as takenover Government Sanskrit Schools. It has to be also borne in mind that the enquiry as envisaged under Ordinance No. 32/90 had been conducted through the District Magistrate and on the receipt of enquiry report, the State Government had classified them into two categories, namely, “Anukul” and “Pratikul”. It has to be also borne in mind that the enquiry as envisaged under Ordinance No. 32/90 had been conducted through the District Magistrate and on the receipt of enquiry report, the State Government had classified them into two categories, namely, “Anukul” and “Pratikul”. In the list of category of Anukul, there were 341 schools which were found to be existing and while in the category of Pratikul, there were 86 schools who were found to be ineligible for being taken over by the State Government and that is how, these 86 schools became the eyesore for the Government and the Board. 34. It has to be noted in relation to the schools placed in the “Pratikul” category, 86 of them that the decision of the committee was based on the following considerations, namely, (i) some schools were found to be altogether non-existent (ii) in some schools teaching and non-teaching employees were found to be in excess of the sanctioned strength as laid down under the staffing pattern as prescribed by the State Government and (iii) in relation to some of the schools it was found that they did not fulfill the criteria of accommodation and other conditions, e.g. in place of four class rooms there, only three class rooms had been found or on the date of inspection 70% of the students were not found to be present in the schools. 35. It is however very significant to note here is that till the expiry of the last Ordinance on 30.4.1992, none of the 429 sanskrit schools including 86 sanskrit schools placed in the Pratikul category were de-notified from the list of 429 sanskrit schools included in appendix-1 of all the Ordinance. Thus, whatever could be the conseuence of Anukul or Pratikul as with regard to takeover of the schools in any manner did not affect the issue of recognition of these 86 schools. 36. As a matter of fact, the vires of Section 4 of Ordinance No.21/90 was assailed before this Court in the case of CWJC No. 7844 of 1990 which was heard along with a batch of other writ applications wherein the common grievance was raised by a large number of teaching and non-teaching employees as with regard to non-payment of their salary working in these recognized 429 sanskrit schools on the ground of continuing enquiry. This Court however by its judgment dated 3.3.1994 in the case of Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 1994(2) PLJR 359 had held that once the last Ordinance had expired on 30.4.1992, all these 429 sanskrit schools. It was also held that though there may be an end to the concept of takeover of 429 schools on lapse of Ordinance by efflux of time, the payment of salary to its employees from the funds of the State Government was to be made to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the 429 recognized sanskrit schools which they were getting even prior to promulgation of the Ordinance apart from the salary as Government Servant from 18.12.1989 to 30.4.1992. The Division Bench in this regard had gone to record a finding that there was no justification for non-release of the salary of the teachers and non-teaching employees of 429 Sanskrit Schools who had been getting the same even prior to promulgation of Ordinance in view of the fact that even according to the State of Bihar, they were entitled to payment of salary in the same manner as was being paid to them when the Ordinance No. 32/89 had not come into force. In this regard, it was also made clear that even the teaching and non-teaching employees of such 86 schools against whom Pratikul report had been submitted, would be entitled to payment of salary in the same manner unless such schools were derecognized or some other suitable orders in accordance with law were passed in accordance with law. 37. The aforementined judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) is still subjudice before the Seven Judges Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3533-3595/1994 wherein both the teachers of 429 sanskrit schools as also the State Government have gone in appeal and the cases have been refered to the Seven Judges Constitution Bench primarily on the issue of the consequence of effect of repeal of temporary statute having a permanent consequence of takeover of the school. The teachers of these 86 schools including of the petitioners' schools are in fact also party in the cases pending befor the Superme Court, wherein, interim orders have been passed for continued payment of salary as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 38. The teachers of these 86 schools including of the petitioners' schools are in fact also party in the cases pending befor the Superme Court, wherein, interim orders have been passed for continued payment of salary as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 38. The only other noticeable fact as with regard to the recognition of the Sanskrit schools is that Rules have been subsequently framed and notified in gazette on 28.6.1994 for grant of recognition under Section 22 of the Act which, for the sake of clarity and the importance to the issue of de-recognition, is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^fcgkj vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izLohd`fr ,oa 'krZ½ fu;ekoyh] 1993] th0 ,l0 vkj0 18] fnukad 28 twu] 1994& fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZz vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼fcgkj vf/kfu;e la[;k 31] 1982½ dh /kkjk 22 eas iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vjktdh; e/;ek Lrj rd ds laLd`r fo|ky;ksa dh Lohd`fr gsrq 'krZsa ,oa izfdz;k ds fofu;eu gsrq fcgkj&jkTiky fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrsa gSa] ;Fkk fu;ekoyh& laf{kIr uke] izkjaHk ,oa foLrkj& ¼1½ ;g fu;ekoyh vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izLohd`fr ,oa 'krsZa fu;ekoyh] 1993 dgh tk ldsxhA ¼2½ ;g rqjar izo`r gksxhA ¼3½ bldk foLrkj lEiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; esa gksxkA 2- ifjHkk"kk,a-& tc rd dksbZ fo"k; ;k lanHkZ ds foijhr u gks] bl fu;ekoyh esa& ¼d½ ^^vf/kfu;e** ls vfHkizsr gS fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1981( ¼[k½ ^^cksMZ** ls vfHkizsr gS vf/kfu;e ds v/khu xfBr cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1981( ¼x½ ^^v/;{k** ls vfHkizsr gS laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ dk v/;{k( ¼?k½ ^^fu;ekoyh** ls vfHkizsr gS fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1981 ds v/khu cuk;h x;h fu;ekoyh( ¼M+½ ^^ekU;rk&izkIr** ls vfHkizsr gS fcgkj ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ( ¼p½ ^^izca/k lfefr** ls vfHkizsr gS e/;ek Lrj rd ds vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ds izca/k gsrq xfBr lfefr( ¼N½ ^^fo|ky;** ls vfHkizsr gS vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ( ¼t½ ^^f'k{kd** ls vfHkizsr gS ekU;rk&izkIr vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kd( ¼>½ ^^vk/kqfud fo"k;** ls vfHkizsr gS ¼1½ ekufodh fo"k; lewg] ¼2½ foKku fo"k; lewg ¼3½ xf.kr] ¼4½ O;kolkf;d fo"k; lewg ¼5½ yfyr dyk ,oa ¼6½ x`g foKkuA ¼´½ ^^jkT; ljdkj** ls vfHkizsr gS fcgkj ljdkj( ¼V½ ^^foHkkx** ls vfHkizsr gS laLd`r fo|ky;ksa dk jkT; ljdkj esa iz'kklh foHkkxA 3- laLd`r f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dk oxhZdj.k& ek/;ek Lrj rd dk laLd`r f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dk oxhZdj.k fuEu izdkj gksxk%& ¼1½ izkFkfed laLd`r fo|ky; --- --- oxZ ,d ls ikap rdA ¼2½ e/; laLd`r fo|ky; --- --- oxZ N% ls vkB rdA ¼3½ ek/;fed laLd`r fo|ky; --- --- oxZ vkB ls nl rdA 4- Lfkkiuk ,oa izLohd`fr dh 'krsZa& ¼1½ Lfkkiuk- & xzkeh.k {ks= esa izLohd`fr izkIr fdlh fo|ky; ds lapkfyr jgus ij fuEu fLFkfr;ksa esa izLrkfor fo|ky; dks izLohd`fr ugha nh tk;sxh%& ¼d½ izkFkfed fo|ky;& ;fn izLohd`fr izkIr izkFkfed fo|ky; ds rhu fdyksfeVj ds Hkhrj izLrkfor izkFkfed fo|ky; gksA ¼[k½ e/; fo|ky;& ;fn izLohd`fr izkIr e/; fo|ky; ds ikap fdyksehVj ds Hkhrj izLrkfor e/; fo|ky; gksA ¼x½ ek/;fed fo|ky;& ;fn izLohd`fr izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky; ds vkB fdyksehVj ds Hkhrj izLrkfor ek/;fed fo|ky; gks] ijarq nwjh dk ;g izfrca/k uxjh; {ks= ij ykxw ugha gksxkA ¼2½ Hkwfe-& ¼1½ fo|ky; ds fy, jkT;iky ds uke ls fuEukafdr U;wure Hkwfe fucaf/kr gks%& ¼d½ izkFkfed fo|ky; ds fy;s xzkeh.k {ks= esa 15 fMlfey vkSj uxjh; }ks= esa 6 fMlfeyA ¼[k½ e/; fo|ky; ds fy;s xzkeh.k {ks= esa ,d ,dM+ rFkk uxjh; }ks= esa 45 fMlfeyA ¼2½ fo|ky; dh Hkwfe fo|ky; ds fookn jfgr n[ky&dCtk esa gks rFkk rRlaca/kh vukHkkj izek.k&i= miyC/k gksA ¼3½ Hkou-& ¼1½ fo|ky; esa oxZ lapkyu gsrq oxZ d{k dk vkdkj ,oa mldh U;wure la[;k fuEuor gks%& ¼d½ izkFkfed fo|ky; --- 16QhV X 12 QhV --- rhu oxZ d{k ¼[k½ e/; fo|ky; --- 16 QhV X 12 QhV --- pkj oxZ d{k ¼x½ ek/;fed fo|ky; --- 20 QhV X 16 QhV --- N% oxZ d{k ¼1½ ek/;fed fo|ky; esa 14 QhV X 12 QhV vkdkj dk ,d dk;kZy; d{k rFkk ,d iqLrkdy; gks( ¼2½ ek/;fed fo|ky; esa Nk=kvksa ds fy;s 20 QhV X 16 QhV vkdkj dk ,d lkekU; d{k gks( ¼3½ ek/;fed fo|ky; esa Nk=kvksa ds fy;s vyx&vyx ‘kkSpky; dh O;oLFkk gks( ¼v½ fo|ky; esa tykiwfrZ dh O;oLFkk gks( ¼vi½ fo|ky; Hkou dh nhokjsa bZV dh cuh gks ,oa Nr iDdh@[kijiks’k gksA ¼4½ f'k{kd@f'k{kdsÙkj LVkQ-& ¼d½ fofHkUu dksfV ds laLd`r f’k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa f’k{kd ,oa f’k{kdsÙkj LVkQ gksa%& dze la0 laLFkk f’k{kd U;wure vgZrk f’k{kdsRrj la- dk Lrj la[;k LVkQ 1 2 3 4 5 1- nks izkFkfed ¼1½ laLd`r mi & ‘kL+=h ¼vk;qosZn fo"k; dks NksM+dj½ f}rh; Js.kh esa mÙkh.kZA ¼2½ eSfVª d vFkok vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa ds lkFk e/;ek ¼f}rh; Js.kh esa mÙkh.kZ½A ‘kwU; 2 ek/;fed rhu ¼1½ f}rh; Js.kh esa mÙkh.kZ vkns'kd&,d fo|ky; 'kkL=h ¼osn fo"k; dks NksM+dj½ vFkok Lukrd iz/kkuk/;kidA ¼2½ f}rh; Js.kh esa bUVjfefM,V vFkok mi&'kkL=h&,dA ¼3½ f}rh; Js.kh esa eSfVªd vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa ds lkFk e/;ek&,dA lIre mÙkh.kZ 3- ek/;fed fo|ky; lkr ¼1½ iz/kkuk/;kid lfgr f}rh; Js.kh esa vkpk;Z ¼vk;qosZn fo"k; dks NksM+dj½&rhu ¼1½ fyfid&,d] eSfVªd@e/;ekkk mÙkh.kZA ¼2½ vkns'kiky& lIre oxZ mÙkh.kZ &,d½ fVIi.kh& ¼1½ mDr rhu esa ,d lkfgR;] ,d O;kdj.k rFkk ,d osn esa vkpk;Z gksA ¼2½ f}rh; Js.kh esa Lukrd mÙkh.kZ&pkjA ¼3½ mDr pkj esa nks foKku] ,d xf.kr rFkk ,d tho foKku lfgr ,d ekufodh rFkk ,d Hkk"kk esa Lukrd gksA ¼[k½ f'k{kd rFkk f'k{kdsÙkj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr esa jkT; esa izo`Ùk vkj{k.k fof/k dk bl fu;ekoyh ds izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk ls vuqikyu fd;k tk;A ¼5½ miLdj vkfn-& ¼1½ e/; vkSj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa ukekafdr Nk=ksa ds vuqikr esa csap≶&MsLd izR;sd oxZ d{k esa miyC/k gksA ¼2½ izR;sd oxZ d{k esa ';ke&iV ,oa f'k{kd ds fy;s dqlhZ vkSj Vscqy dh O;oLFkk gksA ¼6½ iqLrdky;-& izkFkfed@e/; fo|ky; ds iqLrdky; esa dze'k% U;wure 250 vkSj 500 ckyksi;ksxh rFkk ikB~;dze ls lacaf/kr iqLrdsa gksaA ek/;fed fo|ky; ds iqLrdky; esa ,slh iqLrdksa dh U;wure la[;k 1]000 gksA ¼7½ Nk= la[;k-& ¼1½ izkFkfed fo|ky; ds fy;s U;wure dqy Nk= la[;k ipkl] e/; fo|ky; ds fy;s lkB ,oa ek/;fed fo|ky; ds fy;s uCcs gksxhA ¼ii½ oxZokj dqy ukekafdr Nk=ksa dh oxZ esa izfrekg U;wure lÙkj izfr'kr mifLFkfr gksA ¼8½ lqj{kk dks"k-& vkdfLed vko';drkvksa ds fy;s izkFkfed fo|ky; ds fy, ,d gtkj :i;s] e/; fo|ky; ds fy, nks gtkj :i;s ,oa ek/;fed fo|ky; ds fy, ikap gtkj :i;s LFkkuh; cSad@Mkd?kj esa ojh;re f'k{kd@iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk fo|ky; dh izca/k lfefr ds lfpo ds la;qDr inuke ls la/kkfjr [kkrk esa tek gksA ¼9½ ikB;dze-& fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk fofgr ikB~;&dze rFkk ikB~;&iqLrdksa ds v/khu fo|ky; esa v/;kiu dk;Z fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 5- izLohd`fr dh izfdz;k ,oa izLohd`fr-& ¼1½ fu;e 4 esa fo|ky; dh Lfkkiuk ,oa izLohd`fr dh vafdr 'kÙkksZ dks iwjk djrs gq, izLohd`fr dk bPNqd fo|ky; fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ dks bl fu;ekoyh ls mikc) izi= esa ,d gtkj :i;s fujh{k.k 'kqYd ds lkFk vkosnu nsxkA ¼2½ mi&fue ¼1½ ds v/khu izkIr vkosnu ds dze esa ftykf/kdkjh ftlds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fo|ky; vofLFkr gS] }kjk fo|ky; dk fujh{k.k djk;k tk;sxk rFkk fujh{k.k izfrosnu earO; lfgr fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ dks Hkstk tk;sxkA bl fufeÙk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ ikap lkS :I;s ek= ftykf/kdkjh dks fujh{k.kkfn O;; ds fufeÙk Hkst nsxkA ¼3½ v/;{k fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr ds vfHkys[k lfgr jkT; ljdkj dks izLohd`fr laca/kh vuq'kalk HkstsxkA ¼4½ jkT; ljdkj }kjk izLohd`fr dh Lohd`fr izkIr gksus ij v/;{k }kjk fo|ky; dks izLohd`fr nh tk;sxkhA ¼5½ fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr foÙk jfgr gksxh rFkk ,slh izLohd`fr ds QyLo:Ik jkT; ljdkj ij dksbZ foÙkh; nkf;Ro izfrLFkkfir ugha gksxkA ¼6½ izLohd`fr dk izR;kgj.k-& fdlh Hkh izLohd`r fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr ,d ;k vf/kd fuEukafdr dkj.kksa ls fo|ky; dks leqfpr dkj.k fn[kkus dk volj iznku djus ds i'pkr~ ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr ls v/;{k }kjk izR;kg`r dh tk ldsxh%& ¼1½ ;fn fo|ky; esa f'k{kd@f'k{kdsÙkj deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr;ksa esa jkT; esa izo`Ùk vkj{k.k fof/k dk bl fu;ekoyh ds izo`Ùk gksus ds ckn mYya?ku gqvk gks] ¼2½ ;fn dqy Nk=ksa dh fu/kkZfjr U;wure lhek ls de Nk= la[;k gks vFkok U;wure lhek ls vR;f/kd Nk= la[;k gks tks fo|ky; Hkou ds Lo:Ik rFkk f'k{k.kdfeZ;ksa dh la[;k ds loZFkk izR;kuqikfrd gks] ¼3½ ;fn izca/k lfefr cksMZ ds funsZ'kksa rFkk vkns'kksa dh voKk djrh gks] ¼4½ ;fn dksbZ vU; ,slk dkj.k nh[k iM+s ;k izekf.kr gks fd fo|ky; esa dqO;oLFkk O;kIr gS ftldk f'k{k.k dk;Z ij dqizHkko iM+ jgk gksA ¼7½ izdh.kZ-& jkT; ljdkj bl fu;ekoyh dks fo[kafMr vFkok la'kksf/kr dj ldsxh] bl fu;ekoyh ds fu;eksa dks Li"V dj ldsxh rFkk mUgsa ykxw djus esa mRiUu =qfV;ksa ,oa dfBukbZ;ksa dks nwj djus ds fy, funsZ'k ns ldsxhA ¼8½ fujlu vkSj O;ko`fÙk-& bl fu;ekoyh ds izo`Ùk gksus ds iwoZ bl fu;ekoyh esa lfEefyr fo"k;ksa ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk fuxZr lHkh vkns'k bl fu;ekoyh ds izo`Ùk gksus dh frfFk ls fujflr ekus tk;saxs% fdUrq bl fujlu ds gksrs gq, Hkh mu vkns'kksa }kjk ;k muds v/khu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fd;k x;k dksbZ dk;Z ;k dh xbZ dksbZ dkjZokbZ bl fu;ekoyh }kjk ;k blds v/khu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fd;k x;k ;k dh xbZ le>h tk;sxh ekuksa ;g fu;ekoyh ml fnu izo`Ùk Fkh ftl fnu ,slk dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ,slh dkjZokbZ dh xbZ FkhA** (underlining for emphasis) 39. What is significant to be noted from the underlined portion of the aforesaid 1993 Rules, which has come into force with effect from 28.6.1994, is that the ground of cancellation of recognition has been confined to only four eventualities, namely, (i) violation of rules of reservation prescribed by the State Government in the appointment of teachers/non-teaching employees in the recognized schools (ii) if the number of students is less than prescribed minimum number of students or such number is wholly disproportionate to the shape of building of the school or number of the teachers of school (iii) if the Managing Committee disobeys the orders and direction given by the Board (iv) any such ground which would reflect mismanagement adversely affecting the work of teaching in the school. 40. It is to be noted here that after enforcement of the aforesaid 1993 Rules which came into force with effect from 28.6.1994 all sort of dispute was raised with regard to payment of salary of the teaching and non-teaching employees of 429 Sanskrit schools despite there being a clear direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra). Such payment of salary in fact could be made only after the Apex Court in the appeals filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) had passed an order on 9.1.1995 directing payment of salary to all of the teaching and non-teaching employees of these 429 Sanskrit schools as was being paid to them prior to take over of the school on 18.12.1989. The Secretary to the Board, however, by a notice dated 9.11.1995 published in the newspaper, Annexure 4 in C.W.J.C.No. 1727/2009 had directed 84 schools of Pratikul category to file their show cause as also appear for hearing in the matter of continuation of their recognition. The Secretary to the Board, however, by a notice dated 9.11.1995 published in the newspaper, Annexure 4 in C.W.J.C.No. 1727/2009 had directed 84 schools of Pratikul category to file their show cause as also appear for hearing in the matter of continuation of their recognition. The relevant part of the notice dated 9.11.1995 is quoted hereinbelow: ^^fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ iVuk uksfVl ,rn~ }kjk fuEufyf[kr laLd`r fo|ky;ksa ds lfpo@ iz/kkuk/;kid ,oa f’k{kdksa dks ;g uksfVl nh tkrh gS fd bu fo|ky;ksa ds tk¡p lEcfU/kr ftyk inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk djkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj izfrosnu ds tk¡pksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k gS fd ;s fo|ky; izLohd`fr ds ‘krksZ dks dbZ o”kkZs ls iwjk ugha dj jgs gSA vr% bu fo|ky;ksa dh izLohd`fr okil ysus ds fy, fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e 1981 ds izko/kkuksa ds vf/ku dk;ZokbZ izkjEHk dh xbZ gSA bl lEcU/k esa lHkh fo|ky;ksa ds lfpo ,oa iz/kkuk/;kidks dks mUgsa viuk i{k izLrqr djus ds fy, vyx ls Mkd }kjk uksfVl Hksth xbZ gSA lquokbZ dh frfFk fo|ky; ds uke ds lkeus vafdr gSA** 41. The aforesaid notice was made subject matter of a number of writ petitions including C.W.J.C.No. 9869/1995 wherein this Court by an interim order dated 21.11.1995 had while adjourning the case for further hearing in admission matter passed the following order: “In the meantime, though it will be open to the respondents to enquire into the matter relating to de-recognition of any Sanskrit School, in pursuance of the notice dated 9.11.1995 published in the newspaper (Annexure 22), but they will not pass any final order on the same de-recognizing any of such school, whose names are appearing in Annexure 22. The appearances of the authorities of the institutions/ teachers in pursuance of Annexure 22 will not affect their right in challenging jurisdiction of the authorities.” It needs to be only mentioned here that subsequently aforesaid writ petition CWJC No. 9689 of 1995 was admitted by the Divison Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.3.1996 without modifying the aforesaid interim order dated 21.11.1995 and adding that pendency of the writ application will not stand in the way of Respondents to implement the bench decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra). This writ petition CWJC No. 9689 of 1995 is still pending before this Court. 42. This writ petition CWJC No. 9689 of 1995 is still pending before this Court. 42. In view of the aforesaid interim order the respondents did not pass any order for de-recognition of these group of 86 Pratikul Sanskrit schools for not seven years but subsequently by issuing a fresh notice dated 5.3.2002 and thus, abandoning the earlier notice dated 9.11.1995 the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 was passed for de-recognition of 84 of the lot of 86 Sanskrit schools, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: ^^fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ] iVuk vkns’k 442 dksfV ds fofHkUu Lrj ds vjktdh; izLohd`r laLd`r fo|ky; ftuds ekud e.My ds vUrxZr dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa ds osrukfn ds Hkqxrku gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk lgk;~; vuqnku dh Lohd`fr nh tkrh gS] muesa ls fo?kfVr 13 fo|ky; dks NksM+dj 429 fo|ky; ds vf/kxzg.k gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk ,d v/;kns’k fnukad 18-12-89 dks iz[;kfir fd;k x;k izko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh ,oa fodkl vk;qDr ds ek/;e ls tkWp djk;h xbZ rkfd ;g Li”V gks lds fd izLohd`fr gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ‘krksZ dks ;g fo|ky; iwjk djrs gSa vFkok ugha ftyk inkf/kdkjh@mi fodkl vk;qDr ds ek/;e ls tkWp djkus ij ik;k x;k fd 86 laLd`r fo|ky; }kjk izLohd`fr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr ‘krksZ dh iwfrZ ugha dh xbZ gSA bu 86 izfrdwy fo|ky; dks jkt; ljdkj }kjk lgk;~; vuqnku dh lqfo/kk ls oafpr dj fn;k x;kA 2- jkT; ljdkj ds bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) dfri; laLd`r fo|ky;ksa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa mPpre U;k;ky; esa okn@,l-,y-ih nk;j fd;k x;k ftlesa vkns’k ikfjr gqvk fd v/;kns’k esa fufgr izko/kku ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj fdlh izLohd`r laLd`r fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr lekIr djus ds fy, l{ke ugha gSA vr% bu izfrdwy fo|ky; ds dfeZ;ksa ds osrukfn dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 3- rRdkyhu] v/;{k] fcgkj lald`r f’k{kk cksMZ }kjk bu 86 izfrdwy fo|ky;ksa dh izLrhod`fr ‘krksZ dh iwfrZ ugha djus ds dkj.k okil ysus ds lEcU/k esa dkjZokbZ izkjEHk dh xbZ ysfdu vafre :i ls fu.kz; ugha fy;k tk ldkA D;ksafd mDr vof/k esa ;g fo’k; U;k;ky; ds fopkjk/khu FkkA vc pwWfd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk bl fo’k; dk fu’iknu vafre :i ls fd;k tk pqdk gS vr% fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1981 dh /kkjk 6 ¼2½¼[k½ esa fufgr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa bu fo|ky;ksa dh izLohd`fr okil ysus ds lEcU/k esa cksMZ ds i=kad 221] fnukad 5-3-2002 ds }kjk fo|ky; ds lfpo@iz/kkuk/;kid dks uksfVLk tkjh fd;k x;k fd bl lEcU/k esa viuk viuk i{k fnukad 15-3-2002 ,oa 16-9-2002 ds chp mifLFkr gksdj izLrqr djs vU;Fkk ekuk tk,xk fd bl lEcU/k esa vkidks dqN ugha dguk gSA lfpo@iz/kkuk/;kidksa dks ;g Hkh funs’k fn;k x;k fd bldh lwpuk vius Lrj ls lHkh deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh nsaA 4- bu fo|ky;ksa ds lfpo@iz/kkuk/;kid miLkfefkr gksdj viuk i{k fyf[kr :i ls izLrqr fd;kA muls izkIr dkxtkrksa dh xgu :i ls leh{kk dh xbZA cksMZ dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa dh Hkh tkWp dh xbZA 5- fuEukafdr fo|ky;ksa us vius uke ds lkeus vafdr jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ‘krksZa dks vHkh rd iwjk ugha fd;k gS vr% vf/kfu;e 1981 ¼fcgkj vf/kfu;e la[;k 31] 1982½ dh /kkjk 6 ¼2½ ¼[k½ esa fufgr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa budh izLohd`fr@ekU;rk rRdkfyd izHkko ls okil yh tkrh gSA** 43.That such order of de-recognition was based on non-fulfilment of condition of recognition which were individually assigned in respect of each of 84 schools covered by the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 and has also been reproduced in a tabular form in this judgment at an appropriate place. Suffice to say that neither Rule 6 of 1993 Rules which had vested power in the Board to cancel the existing recognition on specified four grounds had ever envisaged cancellation of recognition on the ground of non-fulfilment of the conditions of recognition nor such grounds could be strictly held to be covered by any of the four grounds mentioned in Rule 6 of 1993 Rules as quoted above. As a matter of fact all these 84 schools which were de-recognized by the impugned order dated 15.6.2002, having deemed recognition in terms of Section 25(iv) of the Act, could be subjected to cancellation of their recognition only by an order of the Board in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act wherein it was clearly laid down that the order of recognition of any Sanskrit school could be cancelled only in the manner prescribed under the Rules. There being no other Rule save and except 1993 Rules its strict adherence, therefore, was a condition precedent but on a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 it would become manifest that the Chairman of the Board in his individual capacity had passed the impugned order without following mandate of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. As a matter of fact the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 was itself wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the same was passed by the Chairman of the Board in his individual capacity without its being ever placed before the Board. 44. This Court therefore will have no difficulty in holding the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 to be bad only on the ground that such order passed by the Chairman of the Board was wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Chairman in person under 1982 Act has been given no power to cancel the recognition of a recognized school. 44. This Court therefore will have no difficulty in holding the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 to be bad only on the ground that such order passed by the Chairman of the Board was wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Chairman in person under 1982 Act has been given no power to cancel the recognition of a recognized school. The power of the Chairman of the Board under Section 11 having been prescribed and reading as follows:- ^^11- v/;{k dh 'kfDr;k¡ vkSj d`R; %& ¼1½ v/;{k cksMZ dk iz/kku dk;Zikyd vksj 'kS{kf.kd inkf/kdkjh gksxk vkSj og cksMZ dh cSBdksa dh v/;{krk djsxk % ijUrq v/;{k izFker% ernku ugha djsxk] ysfdu erksa dh la[;k cjkcj gksus ij mls fu.kkZ;d erkf/kdkjh gksxk] ftldk ;g iz;ksx dj ldsxkA ¼2½ cksMZ ds vuqlfpoh; deZpkfj;ksa vksj vU; lsodksa ¼f'k{kdksa vkSj inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks NksM+dj½ ds fy, l`ftr inksa ij v/;{k] fofu;ekoyh vksj fofu;eksa ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj] fu;qfDr dj ldsxkA ,sls deZpkfj;ksa vksj lsokdksa ij mls fu;a=.k vkSj iw.kZ vuq'kklfud 'kfDr;k¡ gksaxhA ¼3½ v/;{k laLd`r fo|ky;ksa ,oa cksMZ ls lEc) vU; laLFkkvksa dk fujh{k.k dj ldsxk vFkok ,sls O;fDr;ksa ls fujh{k.k djk ldsxk ftUgsa og blds fy, izkf/kd`r djsA ¼4½ tc cksMZ dh cSBd u gks jgh gks vkSj ;fn v/;{k dk ;g lek/kku gks tk; fd ,slh fo'ks"k fLFkfr vk pqdh gS ftlesa mls ,slh dkjZokbZ djuk visf{kr gS] ftlesa bl vf/kfu;e }kjk ;k blds v/khu cksMZ esa fufgr fdlh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx vUrxzZLr gks] rks v/;{k ,slh dkjZokbZ dj ldsxk tks og mfpr le>s] vkSj vius }kjk dh xbZ dkjZokbZ dh fjiksVZ cksMZ dh vxyh cSBd esa is'k djsxkA ¼5½ bl vf/kfu;e ds micU/kksa ds v/khu jgrs gq, v/;{k dk ;g dÙkZO; gksxk fd og ns[ks fd cksMZ dh dk;Zokgh bl vf/kfu;e rFkk blds v/khu cukbZ xbZ fu;ekoyh vksj fofu;ekoyh ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj pyk;h tkrh gS vkSj v/;{k ,slh izR;sd dk;Zokgh tks ,sls micU/kksa ds vuq:i u gks] dh fjiksVZ jkT; ljdkj dks dj nsxka tc rd bl ij jkT; ljdkj dk vkns'k izkIr u gks tk; rc rd ,slh dk;Zokgh rFkk mlesa fy, x;s fu.kZ;ksa dks jksd nsus dh 'kfDr v/;{k dks gksxhA ¼6½ v/;{k ,slh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj vU; d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu djsxk tks bl vf/kfu;e rFkk blds v/khu cukbZ xbZ fu;ekoyh vkSj fofu;ekoyh }kjk mldks iznÙk ;k ml ij vf/kjksfir gksA** his independent decision of canceling the recognition of these 86 schools including the petitioners' schools cannot be sustained specially when the power of grant of recognition has been vested in the Board and that too with the prior approval of the State Government. 45. Such exercise of power of the Board by the Chairman of the Board in person in fact was gone into by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Ram Nihore Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(2)PLJR 469 wherein it was held that the Chairman of the Board could not have exercised the power of the Board. 46. Coming to the next impugned order passed by the State Government on 21.7.2008 it has to be noted that when the Chairman of the Board had sent his order dated 15.6.2002 for approval of the State Government, the Government after keeping the matter pending for almost four years had constituted a Committee of Acharya Kishore Kunal, the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Anup Kumar Sinha, Deputy Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and Basant Kumar, Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board which after a detailed consideration had recorded the following conclusions: ^^mi;qZDr leh{kk ds vkyksd esa lfefr ds fu’d’kZ fuEukfyf[kr gS%& ¼d½ ,sls izfrdwy fo|ky;ksa esa ls ,d fo|ky; rst/kkjh uUnu laLd`r mPp fo|ky;] blgiqj dh ekU;rk fujLr djus ds Jh flUgk ds vkns’k dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us jn~n dj fn;k gS vr% ;g fo|ky; iwoZor~ ekU;rk izkIr ekuk tk;sxk vkSj 15-6-2002 ls v|ru Hkqxrku dk ik= gksxkA ¼[k½ ‘ks”k 85 fo|ky;ksa dh Hkh ekU;rk fujLr djus dk vkns’k fu;e fo:) gksus ds dkj.k bu fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk fujLr ugha ekuh tk;sxh vksj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 21-8-2000 ds vkns’k ¼okn la[;k 4118@1999½ ds vkyksd esa ;s fo|ky; rc rd osru izkIr djrs jgus ds ik= gksaxs tc rd budh ekU;rk ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr rFkk cksMZ ds fu.kZ; ds }kjk fujLr ugha dh tkrhA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k gS fd tc dHkh fdlh fo|ky; dh ekU;rk jn~n dh tk;sxh rc og rkRdkfyd izHkko ls gksxh] u fd fdlh Hk`ry{kh izHkko lsA ¼x½ iVuk mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k la[;k M.J.C 1206@94 fnukad 13-2-1996 ds vkyksd esa osru Hkqxrku mUgha v/;kidksa@deZpkfj;ksa dk gksxk tks ekud e.My ds vUrxZr gSA ¼?k½ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 26-4-96 ds fuEu vkns’k ds vkyksd esa 17 fnlEcj 1989 dks ekU; osru ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku vxys vkns’k rd gksrk jgsxkA “In view of the application for clarification it is clarified that our order dated January 4 1999 shall be construed that the employees shall be paid salary at the rate of December 17, 1989 and shall continue to be paid till further order” ¼Case No. 4118 of 1999 in the Court of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachchidanand Jha) ¼M-½ orZeku cksMZ 1993 esa fufeZr fu;ekoyh ,oa vU; fo|eku fu;eksa ,oa ‘‚rksZ ds vkyksd esa iqu% fo|ky;ksa esa O;kIr U;wure vgZrkvksa dh iwfrZ&’krksZ dh leh{kk dj ekU;rk ds fujLrhdj.k djus ds ckjs esa fu.kZ; ysus dks l{ke gS fdUrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ;g u;s fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls ekU; gksxk Hkwrdkfyd izHkko ls ughAa mi;qZDr foospu ,oa fu’d”kZ ds vkyksd esa ;g Li”V gS fd bu 86 fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk fujLr ugha ekuh x;h gS rFkk osru Hkqxrku dh ik=rk iq”V dh x;h gSA fdUrq vkt 21oha ‘‚krh esa dyk ladk;ksa esa Nk=ksa dh vfHk:fp de gksus ds dkj.k fcgkj esa 600 ls vf/kd laLd`r fo|ky;ksa ds vfLrRo dh vko’;drk izrhr ugha gks jgh gSA vr% fo|ky;ksa dh izLohd`fr dh ‘‚rksZa esa vkt la’kks/ku dh vko’;drk gSA ljdkjh i=kad 10@Hkq 3&02@2002 278 fnukad 15-4-06 ds vkyksd esa laLd`r f’k{kk ds lqn`<hdj.k ds fy, lq>ko Hkh ek¡xs x;s gSA ftl ij i`Fkd~ izfrosnu fn;k tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr fuEufyf[kr vuq’kalk gS& fcgkj laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1981 dh /kkjk 6 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr ls laLd`r laLFkkvksa dks ekU;rk iznku djus ;k ekU;rk okil ysus dh ‘kfDr laLd`r f’k{kk cksMZ esa ¼v/;{k esa ugha½ fufgr gS] tcfd fcgkj vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izLohd`fr ,oa ‘‚rZ½ fu;ekoyh] 1993 tks mi;qZDr vf/kfu;e 1981 dh /kkjk 22 esa iznÙk ‘kfDr ds vkyksd esa fufeZr gS] ds fu;e 5 ¼4½ ,oa fu;e 6 esa ljdkj dh iwokZuqefr izkIr djus ds okn ;g vf/kdkj cksMZ ds v/;{k dks fn;k x;k gS] tks vf/kfu;e 1981 ds izko/kku ds vuqdwy ugha gSA tgk¡ vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;ekoyh esa fHkUurk gksrh gS] ogk¡ vf/kfu;e izHkkoh gksrk gS vr% fu;ekoyh 1993 esa bl fcUnq ij la’kks/ku dh vko’;drk gSA** 47. The State Government, however, after submission of the aforementioned report of the Committee headed by Acharya Kishore Kunal had passed next impugned order dated 21.7.2008 affirming the order of the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated 15.6.2002 as with regard to de-recognition of 86 of the Sanskrit schools. It is however well settled that if an action of an authority is void ab initio and lacks inherent jurisdiction, its subsequent ratification cannot give legitimacy to such a void order. It is however well settled that if an action of an authority is void ab initio and lacks inherent jurisdiction, its subsequent ratification cannot give legitimacy to such a void order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the State Government dated 21.7.2008, which reads as follows:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx vkns'k iVuk] fnukad -------- tqykbZ] 08 la[;k &10@eq&02@02 ¼va'k½ ek0 % jkT; ds 429 dksfV ds 86 vjktdh; izLohd`r laLd`r fo|ky; tks fu/kkZfjr 'kRrksZ dks iwjk ugha djrs Fks] vf/kfu;e 1981 ¼fcgkj½ vf/kfu;e la[;k 31]1982 dh /kkjk 6 ¼2½ ¼[k½ esa fyf[kr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa v/;{k fcgkj laLd`r cksMZ f'k{kk cksMZ] iVuk ds vkns'k la[;k 3077 fnukad 15-6-2002 }kjk mudh izLohd`r@ekU;rk rRdkfyd izHkko ls okil ys yh xbZ FkhA mDr vkns'k ds fo:) fcgkj laLd`r izkFkfed≶&ek/;fed f'k{kk la?k ds }kjk ;g iz'u mBk;k x;k fd izlaxk/khu 86 laLd`r fo|ky; 'kRrksZ dks iwjk djrk gSa bl lanHkZ es fcgkj fo/kku ifj"kn~ esa Hkh /;ku vkd`"V fd;k x;kA mu lHkh fcUnqvksa ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj usa Mk0 vkpk;Z fd'kksj dq.kky dh v/;{krk esa vkns'k la[;k 278 fnukad 15-4-2006 }kjk ,d f=lnL;h; lfefr dk xBu djrs gq, lfefr dks bl vk'k; dk funs'k fn;k x;k fd ;s lHkh fo|ky; fu/kkZfjr 'kRrksZ dks iwjk djrs gS ;k ughaA bldh LFkyh; tkap dj lfefr tkap izfrosnu ljdkj dks izLrqr djsxh rFkk jkT; esa laLd`r f'k{kk ds 'qf)dj.k ds fy, viuk lq>ko nsxhA 3- mi;qZDr xfBr lfefr us vius i=kad 79 fnukad 31-5-2006 }kjk viuk izfrosnu ljdkj dks lefiZr fd;kA lfefr dks okLrfod fLFkfr dk vUnktk yxkus ds fy, LFky fujh{k.k djus dk funs'k FkkA fo|ky;ksa ds LFky fujh{k.k fd;s fcuk ;g izfrosnu ek= rduhfd vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k Gsa 4- of.kZr fLFkfr esa f=lnL;h; lfefr ds izfrosnu ij fopkj djuk laHko izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% lfefr dh vuq'kalk dks fujLr djrs gq, fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ ds vkns'k la[;k 3077 fnukad 15-6-2002 ftlds }kjk 86 izfrdwy fo|ky;ksa dh izLohd`fr @ ekU;rk okil yh x;h gS mDr fu.kZ; dks lEiq"V fd;k tkr gSA g0@& ¼vfuy dqekj½ ljdkj ds mi&lfpo Kkikad 807 iVuk] fnukad 21 tqykbZ 2008 izfrfyfi & v/;{k @lfpo] fcgkj laLdqr f'k{kk cksMZ] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA g0@& vLi"V 14@07 ¼vfuy dqekj½ ljdkj ds mi&lfpo g0@& 14@7@08** amount to ratifying an illegal order passed by the Chairman of the Board who in terms of Section 11(4) of the Act had no jurisdiction to pass such order. 48. As a matter of fact there is sufficient force even in the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the interim order passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9869/1995, as quoted above, wherein the authorities were given liberty to proceed in the matter of de-recognition but were restrained from passing any order of de-recognition. It is also well settled that any order passed by an authority in violation of the order of the Court is nullity in the eye of law as has been held by in an English Decision in the case of Clarke Vs. Chadburn reported in (1985) 1 All England Report 211, in the following terms:- “I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some charge in the rights and liabiliies of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.” 49. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them.” 49. In the background of the aforesaid facts when these writ petitions were filed assailing both the impugned orders dated 15.6.2002 and 21.7.2008 this Court having also found that the exercise of such power of the State Government in the impugned order for the purposes of ratifying the impugned order of the Chairman dated 15.6.2002 was made after rejecting the report of the three men Committee headed by Acharya Kishore Kunal also on the ground that the said Committee had submitted its report without holding the physical verification/ inspection of 86 schools, had found it necessary to examine individual cases in the light of the grounds mentioned in the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 15.6.2002 specially when the respondent no.3 in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 in the counter affidavit had taken the following stand:- “26. That respondent humbly submit that the report was considered by the Government and it did not find the report in accordance with the direction, given to the committee. The intention of the Government to constitute a committee was to the effect that after physical verification a report is submitted about these 86 schools, the it may consider the restoration of its recognition, provided the schools fulfilled the condition but as the committee did not make the physical verification and submitted the report on technical ground, the government rejected the report and affirmed the order of the Chairman dt. 15th June, 2002 cancelling the recognition of 86 schools. 27. That, the Board in fact is not adverse to 86 schools, but as those schools were included in the 429 schools receiving grant in aid, it was also incumbent upon the Board to verify the existence of those schools, other conditions of fulfillment as prescribed under the rules and only for that purpose the committee was constituted by the Government on the basis of the demand made by the Teacher’s Union, In absence of current physical verification it was not possible for the Government or the Board to restore the recognition of the schools. Hence it affirmed the earlier decision taken by the Chairman on 15th June, 2002. If after physical verification it is found that the schools have improved their condition from the stage of 1995 when the report was submitted by the District Officer, the Board may consider for its revival with the approval of the Government. The State government in absence of any verification by any competent authority cannot restore the recognition of the school.” This Court had thus in order to test the reason disclosed in the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 15.6.2002 as affirmed by the State Government in the order dated 21.7.2008 had passed a detailed interim order on 7.10.2009 which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow: "Having heard counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the view that the State Government has to make a serious thinking about the Sanskrit education in the State of Bihar. It is not in dispute that right from the year 1815 onwards, the Sanskrit education came to be established and there was some sort of Governmental control earlier on the examination and later on the functioning of the school. The last of the link of such Governmental control came to Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. It is also not in doubt that these Sanskrit schools 429 and 222 others are old recognized Sanskrit schools all of them atleast being of the year 1976 or earlier. The ground for canceling the recognition of 86 of 429 Sanskrit schools seems to be either depleting strength of students or lack of infrastructure including building or land. In that view of the matter, while this Court would be required to go into the conditions of the recognition at the time these schools were recognized one thing is very clear that any rule or circular laying down the conditions of recognition or requirement laid down for such recognition can not be made retrospective so as to cancel the recognition of the schools in question. In other words, if there was no requirement of having land at the time of recognition of the individual school, the State Government later on cannot introduce that requirement to be a sine-qua-none for testing the issue of recognition of that school. In other words, if there was no requirement of having land at the time of recognition of the individual school, the State Government later on cannot introduce that requirement to be a sine-qua-none for testing the issue of recognition of that school. While the recognition of each of the school and its cancellation will be required to be gone into at some length, if need be, this Court would expect that the State Government should reconsider the continuance of such recognized 429 + 222 Sanskrit schools by formulating a scheme in which these schools can be clubbed together with an approach that there would be a uniform pattern of teaching of Sanskrit all over the State. In other words, the existing 651 (429 + 222) schools can be reorganized on the basis of utility of such schools on a district basis. The Government may decide that there would be now requirement of only five high schools, ten middle schools and twenty primary schools in respective district and on that basis, it may re-allocate the functioning of the existing schools. That may, in fact, inspire more confidence in the teaching system of Sanskrit, a concept which has mainly been sought to be carried out by the Governmental decision to provide financial assistance to the schools. All these aspects would require a conscious application of mind by the concerned authority of the State Government. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that at one point of time, the State Government had taken a general decision of nationalizing 429 schools by promulgating an ordinance on 18.12.1989 which continued for more than two years till its expiry on 1.5.1992. The rationale of such decision is somehow still in existence, inasmuch as, the resultant decision taken by this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1994(2)PLJR 359 is still subjudice before the Apex Court before a Constitution Bench of seven judges where one of the questions involved is as with regard to the effect of repeal of temporary statute. The continuation of the petitioner schools therefore, has a meaningful proposition inasmuch as not only they are parties to the appeal filed by the State Government which has filed its appeal against all 429 Sanskrit schools including these 86 whose recognition has been cancelled. The continuation of the petitioner schools therefore, has a meaningful proposition inasmuch as not only they are parties to the appeal filed by the State Government which has filed its appeal against all 429 Sanskrit schools including these 86 whose recognition has been cancelled. They still have a point to urge before this Court in this case that either it was open for the State Government to accept the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) or if they had assailed the judgment before the Apex Court they had to maintain status-quo with regard to existence and continuance of those 429 Sanskrit schools. While this Court would not like to put a final word on such submission of counsel for the petitioner, it would definitely like to record that cancellation of recognition of 86 schools during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court are if allowed at the behest of the writ petitioner would lead to automatic revival of taking over of all 429 Sanskrit schools. On the contrary, if the appeal of the State is dismissed even the State Government would be at liberty to examine the individual cases of recognition but then till such an appeal is decided, the effort of the State to de-recognize 86 of 429 schools seems to be not only premature but also in a way causing impediment in the dispensation of justice. The petitioners, in fact, in that aspect can definitely make their complaint before the Apex Court but even then that would not take away their rights to be agitated before this Court on account of the impugned order of derecognition of the 86 of 429 Sanskrit schools. All these aspects of the matter therefore require serious consideration. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the State would pray for four weeks time to come out with a conscious governmental decision as with regard to the fate and future of 651 (429 + 220) Sanskrit schools so that on the next day, the matter can proceed in the light of the stand taken by the State Government." 50. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the State would pray for four weeks time to come out with a conscious governmental decision as with regard to the fate and future of 651 (429 + 220) Sanskrit schools so that on the next day, the matter can proceed in the light of the stand taken by the State Government." 50. As a matter of fact, when this Court did not get any response to the earlier order dated 7.10.2009, it had sought personal appearance of the Principal Secretary of the Department as also Chairman of the Board and after detailed deliberations an the order dated 1.9.2010 was passed relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- "Having heard counsel for the parties at some length and in keeping with the earlier order of this Court, as jointly agreed by the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department, Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board as also the Special Director of the Sanskrit Education on one hand and counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, this Court would accept suggestion coming from the respondents that finality with regard to the enquiry of these 86 Schools will be given within a period of three months. It has also been suggested that a Enquiry Committee of three persons headed by the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board with the concerned District Education Officer as its member Secretary and the concerned Deputy Director of Sanskrit Education in the State Government will constitute such committee which will hold enquiry individually as with regard to each of 86 Schools and submit its report direct to the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department for final decision in respect of 86 Schools. It is however made clear that while evaluating the status of these 86 Schools the Committee should take into account the norms which they were required to follow at the time of their grant of recognition. In other words, if 86 Schools in question had come into existence and were already a recognized School prior to 18.10.1976 when the State Government had prescribed the revised norms for grant of recognition to Sanskrit Schools after the year 1956, the norms of 1976. Resolution would not be made applicable to such schools. In other words, if 86 Schools in question had come into existence and were already a recognized School prior to 18.10.1976 when the State Government had prescribed the revised norms for grant of recognition to Sanskrit Schools after the year 1956, the norms of 1976. Resolution would not be made applicable to such schools. Similarly, such schools which have came into existence after 18.10.1976 but prior to framing of 1994 rules, for them the Bench mark will be the criteria for recognition fixed in 1976 resolution. This Court would further direct that the aforesaid committee will submit its inspection report at least for the schools of the petitioners in these cases within a period of three weeks from today so that a final decision in respect of them is taken by the Principal Secretary, present in the Court, within a period of one month from today. Such speedy action becomes necessary in view of the fact that despite stay of the impugned order of de-recognition of the Schools, the payment of salary of entire teaching and non teaching employees of these 86 Schools for a period beyond 15.6.2002 has been withheld.---" 51. This Court had accordingly constituted a committee for inspection of all these 86 schools so that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 in the background of Rule-6 of 1983 Rules laying down the four specific grounds for de-recognition of recognized schools could be examined with reference to the facts the cases of the petitioners' schools. The inspection of the schools and submission of the report however having been not completed in the prescribed period of time, this Court on 11.10.2010 had again passed a detailed order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- "As would be clear the petitioner schools are part of 86 schools out of total 429 sanskrit schools which were taken over on 18.12.1989 by the State Government by Ordinance no. 32 of 1989. These 86 schools are facing ignominy on account of subsequent discovery made in the period when the school was under the control of the Government, i.e. in between 18.12.1989 to 30.4.1992 when Ordinance No.32 of 1989 and its replacement ordinance were in force before they had ultimately lost their life on 1.5.1992. 32 of 1989. These 86 schools are facing ignominy on account of subsequent discovery made in the period when the school was under the control of the Government, i.e. in between 18.12.1989 to 30.4.1992 when Ordinance No.32 of 1989 and its replacement ordinance were in force before they had ultimately lost their life on 1.5.1992. For this purpose only the Government with a view to take over the liabilities of these 429 old sanskrit recognised schools after acquiring their assets had got them inspected in terms of sections 3 and 4 of the repealed Ordinance. While 341 of them were found to be existing and functioning fulfiling the criteria of recognition and catagorised as ANUKUL these petitioner schools with others 86 in all at that point of time fell in the category of PRATIKUL, inasmuch as, it was reported in respect of them that they did not either fulfill the criteria laid down for recognition of the schools in terms of the State Government Circulars on the subject or there was some other inherent discrepancies which went to question the very existence or functioning of the 86 schools. Such concept and/or catagorisation of PRITIKUL however did not come in the way of functioning of these 86 schools and its teaching and non teaching employees continued to get their salary in the same manner as they were receiving prior to 18.12.1989 such consideration had also been made in the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of „Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar’ reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 359 wherein the main question had been answered by the Division Bench by holding the teaching and non teaching employees of 429 schools who were drawing their salary prior to 18.12.1989 could not be subjected to sudden stoppage of their salary on the ground of catagorisation of ANUKUL OR PRATIKUL. The Division Bench, in fact, had held that irrespective of the category of ANUKUL OR PRATIKUL, such teaching and non teaching employees who had been receiving payment of their salary from the funds of the State Government prior to 18.12.1989 through the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board hereinafter to as the Board shall continue to get their salary till status of these schools is re-fixed or revised, meaning thereby till their order of recognition remains valid. It is a matter of record that even thereafter these 86 schools, earlier placed in the PRATIKUL category, had continued to function and its teaching and non teaching staffs have also been paid salary till May, 2002 under the orders of the Apex Court, wherein the State of Bihar and the teachers have separately assailed the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Subhash Chandra (Supra). Presently, the fate of all these 429 schools including 86 Pratikul schools is still under consideration before the larger seven Judges bench of the Apex Court, primarily on the issue as with regard to effect to their take over on expiry and/or repeal of temporary enactments. Let it be noted that if appeal filed before the Apex Court by the teachers is allowed these 429 sanskrit schools would be deemed to have been taken over w.e.f. 18.12.1989 itself and even if appeal of the State of Bihar is allowed meaning there by these schools are once again held to be the private recognised schools their status as recognized schools receiving grant of fund from the Government would still continue till their recognition by the Board with prior approval of the State Government is itself cancelled. Normally, during pendency of such inter party litigation the Government and the Board should have refrained from changing the status of these 429 sanskrit recognised school but then there are certain observation in the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Subhash Chandra (Supra) which may have emboldened at least the Government to take a fresh look on these schools as payment of salary is being made from the Government funds. In that view of the matter, while this Court would not like to pre-judge the issue involved in these writ applications, but then it will definitely indicate that all the 429 sanskrit recognised school including 86 schools are very-very old recognised Sanskrit schools a few of which have their own existence, of more than hundred years and none being less than 30 years. In fact it was the issue of payment of salary of teaching and non teaching employees of these 86 schools, who having been subjected to de-recognition of their schools have moved this Court in a number of writ petitions and such order of cancellation of recognition of these schools have already been stayed which would mean that the schools are still recognised schools and functioning on the basis of their old order of recognition, Despite the order of interim stay the payment of salary of teaching and non teaching employees have not been restored and thus in order to resolve these controversies this Court had directed in the earlier order dated 1.9.2010 to constitute a committee of three senior functionaries including the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board an officer in the rank of Deputy Director of the State Government in the Human Resources Development Department and the concerned District Education Officer of the District who has been vested with the power of drawing and disbursing officers of teaching and non teaching staffs of the recognized Sanskrit schools. The inspection reports of the aforesaid. Committee which have been brought on the record by the counsel for the Board today, however, are not at all satisfactory and in fact do not give sufficient details on the basis of which the Government can actually reconsider their decision as with regard to these 86 schools. In that view of the matter, this court would direct the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board in place of its Chairman to now take up the job of inspection of these 86 schools afresh along with best of two earlier members i.e. Deputy Director of the Human Resources Department and the concerned District Education Officer. (i) A new inspection committee shall be constituted which would consist Secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board who shall be its Chairman and the junior most among the rest of the two namely, the Deputy Director of the Human Resources Development department and the concerned District Education officer of Bihar Education Service will be its convener. (ii) Such committee with all its three members shall inspect the 86 schools during the working hours and would be at liberty to examine its records and take evidence as with regard to schools being functional. (ii) Such committee with all its three members shall inspect the 86 schools during the working hours and would be at liberty to examine its records and take evidence as with regard to schools being functional. (iii) The report shall also contain photographs of the Schools and the full details of its infrastructure based on records as also a brief write up of past performance of last twenty years of the students these schools in examination conducted by the Board. For this purpose the Secretary of the Board shall prepare a detailed Performa which will be made available in advance to the Secretary/Headmaster schools at least one week before the scheduled date of inspection in order to enable the inspection committee to have full factual details with documents ready for its handed over to the Inspecting team for making the needful verification. (iv)The inspecting team thereafter on its own evaluation will prepare its separate report for each of such 86 derecognised sanskrit schools keeping in view the requirement of fulfillment of terms and conditions of recognition which was then existing at the time when the school was given initial recognition. For this purpose every school through its Secretary/Headmaster will have to furnish the documentary proof showing the date of recognition on the basis of which the committee will examine the fulfilment of parameters of terms and conditions of recognition. (v) As with regard to the viability of satisfactory functioning these 86 schools of 'Pratikul' category, of the Committee will be at liberty to fix its own uniform norms which must be however the same as those prevailing in the other 341 of 429 Anukul' category of sanskrit schools, based on examination of the admission register, attendance register and other connected documents of each of there schools and its cross verification from the concerned documents relating to appearance and results of PRATHMA AND/OR MADHYAMA examination preserved by the Board. It must be however kept in mind by the members of the committee that there should be common parameter and same yard stick for evaluation of these 86 schools so that there is no variation in norms of such inspection of the concerned school giving rise to again another spate of litigation on the ground of discrimination in the matter of restoration of recognition of these schools. (vi) The committee must submit its separate inspection report for each of these 86 schools and if in course of inspection any of the members of the committee or its Chairman will have any difference of opinion among themselves, the concerned person may record his note of dissent but such report must be signed by all the three members if it is found that any of the three members of the Inspecting Committee has not properly cooperated and/or conducted himself in making inspection and/or submitting report of these 86 schools, the concerned person(s) would become liable for being proceeded and punished for committing contempt of this Court. (vii) The purpose of such inspection should be plain and simple that those of the schools which are still functional irrespective of the fulfilment of the recent criteria of recognition laid down by 1994 Rule must be allowed to exist alike the remaining 341 schools. The aim and object of the committee therefore would be making their correct and pragmatic assessment and this court believes that all the three members of the committee being the senior officers of Bihar Education Service, having sufficient experience regarding functioning such schools will put their best effort to complete the task of inspection and evaluation of such schools. Since it has been pointed out that on account of ongoing election programme all over the State it will not be possible to hold inspection either in the month of October or in the month of November, this Court would direct the committee to start its inspection from the month of 1st December, 2010 and completed the same positively by 28th February, 2011. It will be also open for the Inspection Committee to submit its report in phases district-wise to enable the Board and the State Government to take its decision soon after submission of such reports. --------" 52. The pace of the submission of report, however, did not pickup momentum and in such a situation, an order was passed on 23.3.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- "Pursuant to the last order of this Court dated 11.10.2010, Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has filed counter affidavit enclosing Inspection Report of 16 out of 86 schools. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has filed counter affidavit enclosing Inspection Report of 16 out of 86 schools. He has submitted that as a matter of fact, Three Men Committee, constituted by this Court in the aforesaid order, has inspected 33 schools and the reports of remaining 17 schools are under preparation. He has further submitted that there are 26 schools concerning which the present batch of writ applications has been filed and out of them, 12 of the schools have been inspected. He has finally submitted that in order to comply the order of this Court as with regard to inspection and submission of report of all 86 school, it further requires a period of three months, inasmuch as, in the five months period, the three members of the Committee had remained busy in a number of official duties including their deployment in Assembly Election duties. There are two aspects, which would really need immediate attention of this Court, namely:- (i) The pace of holding inspection and submission of the report is very poor, inasmuch as, in a period of more than five months, not even 50% of the schools have been inspected, whereas, the period of five months was fixed with the consent of the officials of the Board and the State Government for completing inspection and submission of the report of all the 86 schools. (ii) Whatever report have been brought on record in the today?s supplementary counter affidavit as with regard to 16 of the schools are again incomplete report and are not in conformity with the directions given in the order of this Court dated 11.10.2010. None of these reports contain ultimate recommendation of the Committee as to whether these schools, on the basis of objective findings of the Inspection Committee, are entitled to be restored their recognition. The Chairman of the Inspection Committee, namely, the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has appeared in person and would explain that the Committee had left the ultimate recommendation part for the Government and the department. The Chairman of the Inspection Committee, namely, the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has appeared in person and would explain that the Committee had left the ultimate recommendation part for the Government and the department. One fails to understand as to whether such approach of the Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board was not a calculated attempt to overreach the direction of this Court and/or to disown the responsibility of the post that he holds in capacity of Secretary of the Board and was assigned the task of being Chairman of the Inspection Committee under the order of this court. The Secretary to the Board, however, today assures this Court that he will immediately sit together with the two other members of the Inspection Committee and finalize his recommendation in keeping with the observations and direction given in the order of this Court dated 11.10.2010 and would submit that the same before this Court within a period of one week from today. Considering this assurance, this Court, for the time being, would not draw any adverse inference against the Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and/or the two other members comprising the Inspection Committee but, then, it is made clear that if there be any further attempt to water down the direction given in the order of this Court dated 11.10.2010, this Court would suitably deal with them in this very proceeding by initiating a proceeding of contempt for violation of the specific order and direction of this Court in the order dated 11.10.2010. Thus, under the changed scenario, in the light of the discussions made above, this Court would once again give last indulgence to the Committee headed by the Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to:- (i) Submit its report with regard to the 33 of the 86 schools already inspected schools with the clear recommendation by 29th of March, 2011 with copies to all the counsels. (ii) The Three Men Committee will complete the inspection of remaining 14 schools regarding which the present batch of writ applications has been filed and a complete Inspection Report, in terms of the order dated 11.10.2010, will be filed on or before 25th of April, 2011 with copies to all the counsels. (ii) The Three Men Committee will complete the inspection of remaining 14 schools regarding which the present batch of writ applications has been filed and a complete Inspection Report, in terms of the order dated 11.10.2010, will be filed on or before 25th of April, 2011 with copies to all the counsels. It will be open for the counsels for the petitioners to file any rejoinder to such Inspection Report in the event they would find anything adverse to the interest of the petitioners of the 26 petitioners school. (iii) The rest of the schools i.e. 86-47=39 schools shall be completed within a period of three months from today and a report regarding rest of the 39 schools in terms of the order dated 11.10.2010 shall also be submitted by 24th of June, 2011 with copies to all the sides. -----------" 53. Despite the aforementioned order of this Court dated 23.3.2011, it had taken the inspection team constituted by this Court another period of six months in submission of its report but even thereafter, the incomplete report became the cause of concern and as such on 22.9.2011, further directions were given by this Court in the following terms:- "Learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, at the outset, has stated that the Inspecting Team has already visited 82 of 84 schools whose recognition has been cancelled under the order of State Government. He would further submit that the inspection of remaining two schools by the Inspecting Team will be completed by the end of this month and the inspection report of the petitioners school with the comment of the Board on affidavit would be filed by 13th of October, 2011. In the considered opinion of this Court, while there would be no difficulty in accommodating the learned counsel for the Board in allowing the Inspecting Team to complete its inspection of the remaining two schools, it would also expect that the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, being the statutory body and having been vested with power of giving recognition to the Sanskrit schools subject to the approval of the State Government, it would re-examine the whole issue of restoration of recognition as with regard to the remaining 84 schools as soon as the inspection of all the schools would be completed. As the counsel for the Board himself has submitted that such inspection will be completed by the end of this month, the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board in next ten days must analyze all these reports and send their recommendation to the Government, if necessary after placing the matter in the meeting of the Board. In such recommendation, the Board, on the basis of the findings recorded in the inspection report as also on the parameters on which such schools had been earlier given recognition, may point out to the Government that such schools which had its recognition for many decades, need to be either restored its recognition or otherwise on a ground that they do not meet the prescribed standard. Once such an exercise is completed by the Board and a report by way of recommendation of the Board for 84 Sanskrit Schools is sent to the Government, the Special Director, Sanskrit Education will examine the matter and place before the State Government for its appropriate decision. As the Board has assured that such exercise by the Board will be completed and its report in the form of recommendation for all 84 schools will be sent to Special Director by 15th of October, 2011, this Court would direct the Special Director, Sanskrit Education to ensure that the remaining exercise by the Government is also completed in next ten days i.e. by 25th of October, 2011 and a decision thereafter is communicated to the Board on 25th of October, 2011.-------" 54. Unfortunately, the aforementioned time schedule fixed was also not carried out by the officials of the State Government and the Board and in such a situation on 15.11.2011, yet another order recording the broad features of the case and the lacuna in the report as also its non-consideration by the State Government was passed, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- "The different orders passed from time to time in this case will speak for themselves that at least to the extent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has been given sufficient indulgence to sort out the issue relating to derecognition of 86 old Sanskrit Schools, some of which in fact are century old. It is only because on an action on the part of the Board as affirmed by the State Government, that the status of these very old recognized 86 Sanskrit Schools have been adversely affected segregating them from the lot of similarly situated 341 school of the total 429 Schools, which at one point of time were found fit enough for even being taken over by the Government. The fact that the teachers and the non teaching staffs of these 86 schools are still suffering would create a piquant situation in which the teachers of 341 Sanskrit Schools of the lot of 429 Sanskrit Schools despite being not taken over by the Government are availing the benefit of payment of salary being made from the funds of State Government inasmuch as in rest 86 of them its teaching and non-teaching employees have been consciously deprived from payment of salary only on the ground of their de-recognition. How far such orders of de-recognition are valid in law is actually the subject matter of these writ petitions and this Court had therefore, found it necessary to get the present condition of the status of the Schools verified by directing inspection to be conducted by the officials of the Board and the State Government. The whole idea infact was that the Government which was the author of the whole concept de-recognizing these old 86 recognized Sanskrit Schools must become aware of the necessary facts for reconsidering its earlier decision inasmuch as, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for their de-recognition on the face of the record were neither sufficient nor sustainable on facts and in law. The recognized institution including the Sanskrit Schools can only be subjected to de-recognition, if it does not fulfill the criteria on which it was either recognized or any other condition to be imposed in future by the recognizing body i.e., the Board and/or the State Government. In the present case, most of the institutions have been de-recognized on wholly irrelevant ground and the most important aspect was not taken into consideration namely, the existence of the Schools and its functioning. That is how, this Court had directed the Board to find out from the result of the last five years as to whether the students of the institution were appearing in the board examination and, if so, what was their performance or result in such examination. That is how, this Court had directed the Board to find out from the result of the last five years as to whether the students of the institution were appearing in the board examination and, if so, what was their performance or result in such examination. There is also other class of institutions namely, Pratikul Schools/ Vidyalaya for whom the Board does not conduct any examination but in their case the inspection report with the help of the number of students studying therein, in the last five years could have gone to show the existence of such Schools. It was in this background, that this Court had passed a detailed order on 22.09.2011, which of course was only in continuity with the earlier orders passed on the same issue from time to time. In the order dated 22.09.2011, this Court on being assured by the counsel for the Board that the whole exercise of inspection of the 84 Schools (two of them have already restored their recognition by the judicial order passed by this Court) would be completed by 15th of October, 2011 had directed the Government to take its fresh decision on the basis of the materials on record by 25.10.2011. Today, Mr. A.P Sinha, learned counsel for the Board submits that though the inspection of all these Schools were completed by 11th of November, 2011, the Board has not been able to send its recommendation to the State Government as directed in the order dated 22.09.2011, the Board would require further four weeks time to complete this exercise. Counsel for the State has, however, stated that the exercise as indicated in the order dated 22.09.2011 will be completed in next two weeks. This Court, though reluctantly, in the interest of justice and for finality to be arrived at in the matter would give the Board, last indulgence till 15.12.2001 from in completing its exercise as directed in the order dated 22.09.2011 by 15.12.2011. The Board must send its recommendation in respect of all the 84 Schools as envisaged also under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board ACt 1981, so, the Authority of the State Government could apply and take their fresh decision in respect of restoring recognition of the 84 Schools in next two weeks i.e. by 31.12.2011. -------" 55. The Board must send its recommendation in respect of all the 84 Schools as envisaged also under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board ACt 1981, so, the Authority of the State Government could apply and take their fresh decision in respect of restoring recognition of the 84 Schools in next two weeks i.e. by 31.12.2011. -------" 55. The said time scheduled fixed by the Court was, however, not carried out and, therefore, the case was adjourned on 17.1.2012 and ultimately on 15.3.2012, an affidavit was filed by the State Government bringing on record the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 whereby and whereunder it had decided to restore recognition of fifteen out of eighty-four Sanskrit schools and rejecting the case of rest 69 of them. The aggrieved school petitioners were also accordingly given opportunity to assail the last order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012. The petitioners have thereafter filed their reply assailing the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 on various grounds. 56. These cases on completion of pleading have been accordingly placed today and counsel for all the parties have been heard at length. 57. On perusal of aforesaid orders of the the State Government dated 5.3.2012, it would become clear that the grounds on which the Chairman of the Board had passed the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 and the grounds on which the State Government has ultimately decided to either withdraw the order of cancellation of recognition of fifteen out of eighty-four schools or has reiterated its decision for cancellation of recognition of rest 69 schools have not remained the same as would be evidenced from the comparative table in respect of all these 84 schools. Sl. No. Name of school Ground given in the order dated 15.6.2002 Ground in the order dated 5.3.2012 SI. Sl. No. Name of school Ground given in the order dated 15.6.2002 Ground in the order dated 5.3.2012 SI. Sl. No. Name of school Ground given in the order dated 15.6.2002 Ground in the order dated 5.3.2012 SI. Name of school Ground given in the Ground given in the No. order dated 15.6.2002 order dated 5.3.2012 1- ef.k izHkk vk;qZosn laLd`r Hkwfe ,oa Hkou 'kqU;A Nk= fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky; xk;?kkV] iVuk la[;k fu/kkZfjr la[;k ls deA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolu -tion) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa viuk Hkwfe] Hkou ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 2- vUuiw.kkZ laLd`r izkFkfed Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Nk=ksa dh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; fo".kqiqj mifLFkfr lEcU/kh 'krksZa dks dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; vjsj gkV] e/kqcuh iwjk ugha djrs gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 3- nsoh vk;qZosn laLd`r izkFkfed Hkou {kfrxzLr] mifLFkfr 83 fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; e/kokiqj eas 9 dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj e/kqcuh ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd fo|ky; dk vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 4- Lo:i laLd`r izkFkfed lg Hkwfe ek= 13 /kwj tks fu/kkZfjr vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k e/; fo|ky; uUnu /kdtjh] eki n.M ls de gSA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr e/kqcuh fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vkyksd esa ekin.M ds vuqlkj dejk dh la[;k iwjk djus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 5- fcgkj laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkwfe] Hkou] iqLrdky; ,oa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/kqfj;k] fcgkj'kjhQ ukyUnk dks"k ughaA dksbZ Hkh 'krsZ iwjk dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ugha djrs gSA ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 6- tVk/kj laLd`r izkFkfed lg ek= nks dejs dk Hkou gSA e/; fo|ky; [kM-jd] 61 esa ek= 9 Nk= mifLFkrA vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k e/kqcuh Hkou ,oa Nk= la[;k iwjk laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh] ugha djrs gSA 1976 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 7- xtjkt laLd`r izkFkfed lg Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lacU/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] ck?kh] eqtIQjiqj iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 8- vtc yky lkoZtfud laLd`r Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa iqLrdky; vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k mPp fo|ky; 7- xtjkt laLd`r izkFkfed lg Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lacU/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] ck?kh] eqtIQjiqj iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 8- vtc yky lkoZtfud laLd`r Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa iqLrdky; vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k mPp fo|ky; ealkiqj] e/kqcuh lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gSA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vuqlkj mifLFkr Nk=ksa dk uke mifLFkfr iath esa vafdr ugha ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 9- fon~;kifr czg~ep;kZJe laLd`r Hkwfe] Nk=ksa dh mifLFkfr ,oa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky;] djekSyh] e/kqcuh iqLrdky; lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ugha djrs gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vuqlkj fo|ky; lapkyu ugha jgus ,oa fujh{k.k ds le; fo|ky; esa nwljs fo|ky; dk Nk= cqykdj fo|ky; lapkyu dh voLFkk esa fn[kkus ds iz;kl ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 10- dkes'oj yrk laLd`r mPp Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Nk=ksa dh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] /kks/kjMhgk] e/kqcuh mifLFkfr lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ugha djrsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa Hkou ugha jgus Nk= ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 11- f'ko laLd`r izkFkfed lg Hkwfe ,oa Nk= dh mifLFkfr fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] eUlkiqj] e/kqcuh lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gsA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 12- jkes'oj laLd`r e/; fo|ky;] Nk= l[;k] mifLFkfr uxU; gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku jktuxj] e/kqcuhA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 13- ljLorh Hkou laLd`r mPp Hkwfe] Nk= dks"k vkfn fdlh Hkh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] lqxkSuk] e/kqcuh 'krsZ dks iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; esa Nk= mifLFkfr ux.; jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 14- vkn'kZ laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkou] Nk= la[;k] iqLrdky; fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku dqjekoka f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] lqxkSuk] e/kqcuh 'krsZ dks iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; esa Nk= mifLFkfr ux.; jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 14- vkn'kZ laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkou] Nk= la[;k] iqLrdky; fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku dqjekoka ijS;k] x;kA ,oa dks"k 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 15- jkeukFk laLd`r mPp Hkwfe Hkou ,oa dks"k lEcU/kh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; dSekf'kdksg] 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; iVuk flVh iVuk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa Hkwfe fo|ky; ds uke ugha gksus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 16- xkSjh'kadj laLd`r e/; Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Nk= la[;k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] cSdq.Biqj] iVukA 'kqU; fo}ky; eafnj ds cjkens dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; esa pyrk gSA fdlh Hkh 'krZ fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk dks iwjk ugha djrk gSA ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 17- ia0 xs.kkyky Lekjd cky Hkwfe ,oa Nk= la[;k lacU/kh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku Hkkjrh laLd`r izk0 lg e/; 'krZ iwjk ugha djrsA Nk= dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fo|ky;] ckFkks] njHkaxk la[;k 'kwU; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 18- cS/kukFk laLd`r izk0 lg Hkou ugha gSa ,oa Hkwfe fu/kkZfjr fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] ljS;kxat ekin.M ls de gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ] eqtIQjiqjA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 19- jk/kkd`".k izk0 lg e/; Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] y[kukSj] e/kqcuhA iwjk ugha gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 20- O;kdj.k lkfgR; laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe 19- jk/kkd`".k izk0 lg e/; Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] y[kukSj] e/kqcuhA iwjk ugha gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011"> 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 20- O;kdj.k lkfgR; laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lacU/kh 'krZ vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k lg e/; fo|ky; cq<+kukFk] iwjk ugha gSA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh HkkxyiqjA 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; dk viuk Hkwfe] Hkou ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 21- pUnz'ks[j laLd`r izk0 lg Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Nk= lEcU/kh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky; yksg<+h] lksgljk;] fdlh Hkh 'krZ dks iwjk ugha dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ukyUnkA djrsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 22- oa'kh/kj laLd`r izk0 fo|ky;] viuk Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku Qrsgiqj x;k dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 23- iqjuey laLd`r izk0 fo|ky; viuk Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku tgkukckn dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 24- ljLorh laLd`r izk0 lg Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky; eqckjdiqj] lkj.kA ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011”> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 25- dSd;h ';kek laLd`r e/; 'krksZ dh iwfrZ ughaA ftyk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; dNqvk eSuh] inkf/kdkjh dk iwoZ esa dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; reqfj;k] e/kqcuhA izfrdwy izfrosnuA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011”> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 26- f'ko laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku ] ikejxUt tEgkSj] vksjaxkcknA iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; Nk= Hkh de gSA izfrosnuA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 011”> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 26- f'ko laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkwfe ,oa Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku ] ikejxUt tEgkSj] vksjaxkcknA iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; Nk= Hkh de gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. face=“Kruti Dev 011”> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds s ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 27- nso/khjk laLd`r mPp Nk= mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; nhi] e/kqcuhA ls deA dks"k esa jkf'k de gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; iwoZ esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk dk izfrdwy izfrosnu gSA ladYi (Resolution) No. 011”> 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 28- jkekuqt laLd`r mPp Hkwfe] Hkou] dks"k ,oa iqLrdky; fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] cS/kukFk lgk; dk ugha gSA fdlh Hkh 'krZ dks dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; gkrk] HkkstiqjA iqjk ugha djrsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 29- xksnkojh jkelsod laLd`r Nk=ksa dh mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k mPp fo|ky;] iapjRu] ls deA iqLrdky; esa dehA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr ?kksjcadh] e/kqcuhA iwoZ esa izfrdwy izfrosnuA fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; esa vyx cxy ds fo|ky; ds Nk= jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 30- dadkyh laLd`r ek/;fed Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] HkkSj] e/kqcuhA ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr ls fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk deA iwoZ esa izfrdwy izfrosnuA ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 31- 'kadj laLd`r izkFkfed Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] lfjlo] dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; lfjloikgh] e/kqcuh fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 32- dq'ks'oj iq"iek;k ikjle.kh Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku laLd`r mPp fo|ky; djrs gSa Nk= dh mifLFkfr dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; jgqvklaxzke] xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; lfjloikgh] e/kqcuh fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 32- dq'ks'oj iq"iek;k ikjle.kh Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku laLd`r mPp fo|ky; djrs gSa Nk= dh mifLFkfr dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; jgqvklaxzke] e/kqcuhA 'kqU;A fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 33- loksZn; njokjh laLd`r Hkwfe Hkou Nk= la[;k dks"k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky;] ykSQk] e/kqcuhA ,oa iqLrdky; laca/kh 'krZ dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; iwjk ugha djrs gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 34- f'koukFk laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh 'krksZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; es?kkSy dks iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA Nk= dh mifLFkfr uxU; gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k ugha rFkk fo|ky; dks viuk Hkou ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 35- HkSjoh Hksjes'oj laLd`r Nk= dh mifLFkfr uxU; gSa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky; >a>kjiqj] e/kqcuh iwoZ eas izfrdwy izfrosnuA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 36- ;ksx iwf.kZek tkudh fu/kkZfjr lHkh 'krksZ dks iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku Hkou laLd`r mPp 'kr/kjk] ugha djrs gsA 'krksZa dh iwfrZ dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA laca/kh iwoZ esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh dk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk izfrdwy izfrosnuA ladYi (Resolution) No. 011”> No. 4124 fnukad 11-08- 1956 ds vkyksd esa dejk dh la[;k iwjh djus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 37- laLd`r e/; fo|ky; Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku iLVu e/kqcuhA djrs gSA Nk= mifLFkfr dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; 'kwU; gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; esa nwljs fo|ky; dk Nk= cqykdj fo|ky; lapkyu dh voLFkk esa fn[kkus ds iz;kl ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 38- jk/kkd`".k 108 jketkudh tkap ds le; Nk= dh vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k laLd`r Nk= mifLFkfr dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; 'kwU; gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; esa nwljs fo|ky; dk Nk= cqykdj fo|ky; lapkyu dh voLFkk esa fn[kkus ds iz;kl ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 38- jk/kkd`".k 108 jketkudh tkap ds le; Nk= dh vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k laLd`r izk0 lg e/; fo|ky;] mifLFkfr 'kqU; iqjsosyk] e/kqcuh laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vuqlkj vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ds varxZr vizsf{kr la[;k esa oxZQy@dejs] iqLrdky; esa iqLrd] 'kkspky; vkfn fufnZ"V 'krksZa dks iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 39- laLd`r mPp fo|ky;] Hkou {kfrxzLr Nki fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku enus'oj LFkku e/kqcuh mifLFkfr uxU;A dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 40- fcuksn rkjk laLd`r Nk= la[;k fu/kkZfjr lhek fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky;] eaxjkSuh] ls deA mifLFkfr 70 dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA izfr'kr ls deA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 41- gfjcYYHk laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k lg e/; fo|ky;] csygk] djrs gSA xsgqekosfj;k] e/kqcuh laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; lapkyu ugha jgus ,oa fujh{k.k ds le; fo|ky; esa nwljs fo|ky; dk Nk= cqykdj fo|ky; lapkyu dh voLFkk esa fn[kkus ds iz;kl ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugh dh tk ldrh gSA 42- laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Nk= la[;k de ,oa mifLFkfr fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku ] ijtqvkj] e/kqcuhA 70 izfr'kr ls deA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 43- Hkokuh Hkou laLd`r Nk= mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr ls fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky;] xksukSyh] e/kqcuhA de izfrdwy tkap izfrosnuA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 44- diwZjh Bkdqj izk0 lg Nki mifLFkfr uxU;A vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k e/; fo|ky; pkSM+k egjSy] laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh e/kqcuhA 1976 ds vuqlkj vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ds vUrxZr vizsf{kr la[;k esa oxZQy@dejk] iqLrdky; dh deh] Nk= mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr ls de jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 45- eSfFkyh fo|kihB la0 m0 20 o”kksZa ls Hkwfe fookn ds fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo0] mifLFkfr uxU;A vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k e/; fo|ky; pkSM+k egjSy] laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh e/kqcuhA 1976 ds vuqlkj vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ds vUrxZr vizsf{kr la[;k esa oxZQy@dejk] iqLrdky; dh deh] Nk= mifLFkfr 70 izfr'kr ls de jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 45- eSfFkyh fo|kihB la0 m0 20 o”kksZa ls Hkwfe fookn ds fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo0] Nidh] iks0& y{ehlkxj dkj.k fc|ky; lapkfyr ugha gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; njHkaxk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 46- ijes'ojh laLd`r mPp Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; Bk<+h] e/kqcuhA ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa dejk {kfrxzLr jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 47-Ekgkjkuh y{eh’ojh laLd`r Hkwfe ,oa Nk= la[;k dh vjktdh; laLd`r f’k{k.k m0 fo0 y{ehiqj vkuUniqj ‘‚rsZa iwjk ugha ugha djuk gSA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh njHkaxkA 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 48- Xts'ojh ccqvkth la0 izk0 Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo0 dksBkrksy] jfgdk] e/kqcuh ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 49- ';kek Hkou mPp dks"k] iqLrdky; ,oa Hkou fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] mNVh] njHkaxkA lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 50- euksgjnkl t;ukjk;.k ccquk Hkwfe Hkou ,oa iqLrdky; ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku izk0 lg e/; fo|ky;] dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ubZ lM+d iVuk flVh iVuk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa viuk Hkwfe] Hkou ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 51- tokgj lLd`r izk0 lg Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] jlhniqj] e/kqcuhA ugh djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 52- iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 51- tokgj lLd`r izk0 lg Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky;] jlhniqj] e/kqcuhA ugh djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 52- dknEcjh laLd`r izk0 Nk=ksa dh mifLFkfr 70 fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] xaxksyh e/kqcuhA izfr'kr ls deA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 53- czg~ef"kZZ laLd`r izk0 lg Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky; iapjRu] ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ?kksjcadh] e/kqcuhA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 54- mxzrkjk laLd`r mPp Hkou {kfrxzLr] Nk= mifLFkfr vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k fo|ky; xU/kokjh] e/kqcuhA 70 izfr'kr ls deA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekotyh 1976 ds vuqlkj fujh{k.k ds le; vU; fo|ky;ksa ds Nk=ksa dks fo|ky; esa cSBkdj lapkfyr voLFkk esa fn[kkus dk iz;kl fd;s tkus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr ij fopkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 55- laLd`r mPp fo|ky;] Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fiY[kokM+k] e/kqcuh ugh djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; esa Nk= ux.; jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 56- Jh txUukFk laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe] Hkou] Nk= ,oa vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k lg e/; fo|ky; u;k dks"k ugha gSA cktkj] Hkkxyiqj laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 57- HkSjoh Hkou laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Nk= la[;k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; lry[kk] jfgdk] laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrk gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 58- 'kkjnk eafnj laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; cDlhVksy] djrk gSA Nk= mifLFkfr uxU; dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 58- 'kkjnk eafnj laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; cDlhVksy] djrk gSA Nk= mifLFkfr uxU; dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo fofgu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 59- 'kkjnk lnu laLd`r mPp 2 dejs dk Hkou gS] Nk= la[;k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; pSuiqj] iwohZ pEikj.kA laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrk gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 60- Jh fuokl laLd`r mPp Hkou ,oa Nk= la[;k laca/kh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] xk;=h?kkV] x;k 'krZ iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 61- gfj'pUnz laLd`r mPp Hkou] iqLrdky;] dks"k ,oa fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] rjkSuh] njHkaxkA Nk= la[;k laca/kh 'krZ dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; iwjk ugha gsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa Nk= mifLFkfr ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 62- Jherh jktdqekjh izk0 Hkwfe Hkou Nk= la[;k vkfn fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; ekmj] fdlh Hkh 'krZ dk iwjk dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; cjch?kk eqaxsj ugha djrsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; eafnj esa lapkyu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 63- tukZnu laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe] Hkou] Nk=] dks"k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; 'kaHkqxat njHkaxkA iqLrdky; vkfn fdlh dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; Hkh 'krZ iwjk ugha djrsA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 64- lathouh laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe] Hkou ugha gSA Nk= la[;k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; fpjS;kVkM+ iVuk uxU; gSa izLohd`r LFkku dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ij fLFkr ugha gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 64- lathouh laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe] Hkou ugha gSA Nk= la[;k fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; fpjS;kVkM+ iVuk uxU; gSa izLohd`r LFkku dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; ij fLFkr ugha gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 65- 'kkjnk fuokl laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; fiijiSarh x;kA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 66- jke fouksn laLd`r izk0 Hkqfe] Hkou ,oa Nk= fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] mLrjek x;kA ugha gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 67- oh.kkikf.k laLd`r izkFkfed Hkwfe] Hou ,oa Nk= ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] xnZuhckx] gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; vuhlkckn] iVuk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 68- fln~/kukFk laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] f'koxat vkjkA 44 esa ls 11 Nk= mifLFkrA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 69- jkt laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky; Vsdkjh] x;kA 'krZ iwjk ughaA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ds vUrxZr viuh Hkwfe] Hkou dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; ds fu;fer lapkyu ds laca/k esa lk{; ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 70- ljLorh Hkou t;dkUr Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky; fpduk e/kqcuh iwjk ughA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 70- ljLorh Hkou t;dkUr Hkwfe ,oa Hkou laca/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku mPp fo|ky; fpduk e/kqcuh iwjk ughA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 71- jkenso laLd`r mPp Nk= mifLFkfr 'kqU; gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] cM+gjk] Hkkstiqj dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 72- xaxk laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] dslfj;k] iq0 pEikj.k ugha djrk gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa ekin.M ds vuqlkj Nk= la[;k ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 73- ';kek Hkou laLd`r Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k izk0 lg e/; fo|ky; ugha djrk gS tkap ds laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh e:fd;k] xkscjjksMk e/kqcuh le; Nk= mifLFkr ughaaA 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 74- e/kqlqnu laLd`r mPp Hkwfe ,oa Hkou ugha gSA vjktdh; laLd`r f'k{k.k fo|ky; e/kqlqnuuxj] Nk= mifLFkr 'kwU; gSA laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh ?kkslh] Hkkxyiqj 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; dk viuk Hkou ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr ij fopkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 75- deyk laLd`r izk0 dejksa dh la[;k de gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk lg e/; fo|ky; Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ,'kksfl;s'ku dk xBu Lo:i ikghVksy] lfjloikgh e/kqcuh ugha djrk gSA ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 76- cS/kukFk laLd`r izk0 lg Hkou ,oa Nk= lEcU/kh 'krZ fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku e/; fo|ky; Hksykgh] iwohZ pEkikj.k iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa Hkou ugha jgus Nk= ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 77- gseukRet laLd`r izk0 Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; jkeiwjgfj] djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; eqtIQjiqj fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa Hkou ugha jgus Nk= ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 77- gseukRet laLd`r izk0 Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; jkeiwjgfj] djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; eqtIQjiqj fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 78- 'kkjnk lnu laLd`r Hkou lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku izk0 lg e/; fo|ky;] ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; dk;LFkdobZ] njHkaxk fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa Nk= mifLFkfr ,oa ijh{kkQy 'kqU; gS rFkk Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha djus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 79- y{ehdkUr laLd`r e/; viuk Hkou ugha gSA fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] rhYMhgk Hkkxyiqj dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa izLohd`fr nh tkrh gSA 80- cq/ks'oj laLd`r mPp Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa dks"k vkfn fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] cqVkukFk] Hkkxyiqj 'krZ dks iwjk ugha djrs gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 81- ckcwuUnu laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe ,oa dejksa dh fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; /kukStk] la[;k de gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; e/kqcuhA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko ,oa Nk= mifLFkfr ux.; jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 82- izHkkorh laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe laca/kh 'krZ iwjk ugha fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku lg e/; fo|ky; jS;ke] djrk gSA izfrdwy tkap dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; >a>kjiqj] e/kqcuh izfrosnu gSA fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; lapkfyr ugha jgus ,oa Nk= mifLFkfr ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 83- fnO;izHkk laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] leqfp;k Hkkxyiqj ugha djrk gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 84- jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 83- fnO;izHkk laLd`r izk0 Hkou laca/kh 'krZ iwjk fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] leqfp;k Hkkxyiqj ugha djrk gSA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 84- y{eh uk0 laLd`r izk0 Hkwfe dk fuca/ku ,oa Hkou fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku fo|ky;] jruiqjk] lkj.kA lEcU/kh 'krZ iwjk ughA dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa fo|ky; vfLrRo foghu jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 58. Apart from the aforementioned 84 schools, the rest of the two of lot of 86 Pratikur schools are Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Ishapur, Sarispahi, Madhubani and Anand Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Mirjapur, Rajnagar, Madhubani. The case of the aforementioned two schools have already been decided by this Court by two different judgments wherein the same impugned order dated 15.6.2002 so far it relates to them has been quashed and their recognition have already been restored. 59. In the case of Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya decided by an order dated 24.3.2006 in CWJC No. 5133 of 2003 (Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit Uccha Vidyalaya Vs. State & Ors.) it was held as follows:- “By the impugned order, annexure 7, recognition of the many schools including that of the petitioner’s school was cancelled on the ground that on the date of inspection students as were present less than 70 per cent. There is no dispute that 124 students were registered with the petitioner’s school on the date of inspection and 72 of them attended the school. Accordingly it may be possible that 70 per cent of the students attended the school on the date of the inspection but that cannot be reason for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school. In the matter of absence of the students on a particular date the school cannot be blamed. For non-attendance of 30 per cent students on the particular date, the school cannot be blamed. Therefore, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of recognition of the petitioner’s school. In those circumstances in so far as impugned decision, being annexure 7 to the writ application, deals with cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school, the same is quashed. This disposes of the writ petition.” 60. Subsequently, the case of Anand Sankrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Mirjapur was also decided by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 366 of 2009 (Kalika Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by an order dated 12.5.2010 wherein it was held as follows:- 8. This disposes of the writ petition.” 60. Subsequently, the case of Anand Sankrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Mirjapur was also decided by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 366 of 2009 (Kalika Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by an order dated 12.5.2010 wherein it was held as follows:- 8. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 6 and 11 it thus becomes clear that the Chairman of the Board is only the Principal Executive and academic officer of the Board and cannot exercise the power of the Board all by himself except in an emergent situation and that too its immediate approval in the next meeting of the Board. The scope of section 11(4) of the Act and emergent power of the Chairman of the Board has in fact been gone into by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Ram Nihore Pandey vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1993(2) PLJR 469. 9. Thus, on the face of record when the Chairman of the Board had passed the order of withdrawing/ cancelling recognition of the school of the petitioner, the same being impermissible in terms of section 6(2) of the Act has to be held to be bad on this ground alone. 10. It is also well settled that if any action is without jurisdiction or is void the same cannot be ratified so as to give life to a dead action/ order. Consequently the order passed by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government under Memo No. 807 dated 21st July, 2008 seeking to approve the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 15.6.2002 as with regard to cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition of 86 schools including the school of the petitioner is equally bad. 11. Normally having held that the order of cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition of the school of the petitioner was without jurisdiction, this Court would have left the matter over there but then as the learned Single Judge has gone to examine the grounds of cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition of the school of the petitioner, this Court must advert to those aspects as well. 12. 12. The history of Sanskrit school in the State of Bihar has a glorious past; inasmuch as right from the 1st Government Order No. 2077-E dated 29th November, 1915 issued by the Education Department it can be found that the recognition of Sanskrit Education and Sanskrit Examination has always engaged the attention of the Government. In this regard one may usefully refer to Resolution No. 4124 dated 11th August, 1956 issued by the Govt. of Bihar in the Education Department as with regard to constitution, nature and function of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Association, which was the first controlling body of the State Government for regulating Sanskrit Education and Examination. 13. The school in question in fact has got recognition of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Association in the year 1960 and at that point of time the following provisions had governed the field: “Rules regulating Sanskrit Institutions and Administrative Organization of Sanskrit Education (1) Scope of the Bihar Sanskrit Association- (1) The Bihar Sanskrit Association is concerned with Sanskrit Education at all stages except research and Post-Graduate Studies and with Sanskrit examination in various subjects. It also aims at promoting exchange of ideas and thought among Sanskrit scholars through such functions as Shastra Vichar, Seminars, etc. It may also organize teachers training programmes, Seminars etc., with the approval of the State Government. It is an affiliating and examining body and it has no teaching institution of its own. The teaching is imparted by Sanskrit institutions recognized and controlled by it. (2) Institutions for studies in Sanskrit will be of three categories, corresponding to the three stages of Sanskrit Education, Primary, Secondary and Higher known as (i) Sanskrit Pathasshalas (Sanskrit Primary Schools), (ii) Sanskrit Vidyalayas including those in which a modernized syllabus is introduced (Sanskrit high schools), (iii) Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya including those in which a modernized syllabus is introduced (Sanskrit colleges). It will be the endeavour of the Association to introduce the modernized syllabus in as many institutions as possible depending upon the availability of funds and feasibility of the programme. But the existing Sanskrit institutions of the old type will continue to be recognized so long as they work efficiently. It will be the endeavour of the Association to introduce the modernized syllabus in as many institutions as possible depending upon the availability of funds and feasibility of the programme. But the existing Sanskrit institutions of the old type will continue to be recognized so long as they work efficiently. (3) The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga, the Nalanda Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Pali and the Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Prakrit and Jain learning are not part of or under the Sanskrit Association but they will work in close co-operation with the Association.” 14. From the said rules and also Rule 15 laying down as follows: “15. Recognition of Sanskrit institution and award of grant-in-aid- The following are the rules and conditions governing the grants of recognition, award or grant-in-aid, etc. A. Recognition of Sanskrit Institutions.- (i) No Sanskrit institution shall be considered eligible for presenting candidates at any examination of the Sanskrit Association as regular students thereof unless it has been recognized by the Association. (ii) No Sanskrit institution seeking recognition shall submit an application for the same in a prescribed form to the Secretary of the Association through the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned in the case of a Pathshala and the District Inspector of Schools in the case of a Vidyalaya or Mahavidyalaya. The application should reach the Secretary latest by the end of January every year. The application shall be for a particular standard in a particular subject or subjects. The application should reach the Secretary latest by the end of January every year. The application shall be for a particular standard in a particular subject or subjects. General condition of Recognition.- In order to be recognized, a Sanskrit institution must fulfil the following conditions:- (i) that it maintains properly all registers required by the department for the purpose of both inspection and auditing; (ii) that it makes necessary arrangements for the efficient teaching of the subjects up to the standard for which it seeks recognition or has been recognized; (iii) that it has qualified and competent teachers of the requisite number on its staff; (iv) that it is housed in a suitable building of its own, which is free objections on sanitary grounds and affords sufficient accommodation; (v) that in case it has no building of its own, the management provides a satisfactory building of its own within a reasonable period of time; (vi) that the teachers are paid regularly, according to the prescribed scales of salaries; (vii) that the institution maintains a library, befitting its status and standard of teaching; (viii) that it is open to inspection by the officers and by other authorized inspecting officers of the Education Department; (ix) that it puts in at least five hours of sustaining in teaching and tutorials, etc., every working day. Special conditions of recognition, in addition to conditions laid down above.- I. An institution shall be recognized as the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya on the fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) that the institution imparts higher instruction in more than one subject to students preparing for Shastri and Acharya examinations; (ii) that it has a minimum of five teachers on its staff, all of whom must be at least second class Acharyas; (iii) that it provides for a hostel, a play-ground, a common-room and a teachers common-room; (iv) that in case it is a non-Government institution, it has a reserve fund of at least Rs. 5000 in each in a public account or in the form of a property, or security, yielding an annual income of not less than Rs.500; (v) that it possesses a library having books worth Rs. 2000. II. 5000 in each in a public account or in the form of a property, or security, yielding an annual income of not less than Rs.500; (v) that it possesses a library having books worth Rs. 2000. II. A Sanskrit institution shall be recognized as a Sanskrit Vidyalaya on the fulfillment of the following special conditions:- (i) that the institution imparts instruction up to the Madhyama standard in subjects, prescribed for the examination; (ii) that it has at least three teachers on its staff, all of whom must be at least a second class Shastri; (iii) that it has necessary equipments including a library containing books worth Rs. 1000 at least, all the text-books and important reference books and periodicals; (iv) that in case it is a non-Government institution, it has a reserve fund of at least Rs. 1000 in cash or a property yielding as annual income of not less than Rs. 250.” it would be absolutely clear that there was no requirement of having land as a part of condition of grant of recognition to the school in question which was already a recognized institution of the year 1960 as also shown in the Bihar Gazette dated 27th June, 1962. For the category of the school of the petitioner, therefore, the requirement of the land and absence thereof could not have been made the ground for withdrawal/ cancellation of recognition as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as at that point of time the Sanskrit schools could even have the recognition without having a building of its own. None-the-less it has to be recorded herein that the inspecting team has found existence of full-fledged building of the school and about the land its adverse inference is also ignorance of the fact that the land donated to the school were made subject matter of the ceiling proceeding and were only subjudice. However, in view of the resolution of the State Government laying down the terms and conditions of the recognition of the year 1956 and the recognition given to the petitioner in the year 1960, there being no requirement for having land registered in the name of the school that could not have been made a ground for cancelling/ withdrawal of recognition of the school. 15. 15. As a matter of fact after the resolution dated 11th August, 1956 the next Government instruction as with regard to norms of fulfillment of the terms and conditions of grant of recognition can be found only by a notification No. 2291 dated 18th October, 1976 wherein for the first time the requirement of land of minimum 2 kathas in the rural area and 1 katha in the urban area for primary school with two room building for a primary school, 5 kathas of land in rural area and 2 kathas of land in ruban area in the name of the school along with four room building for the middle school and 1 bigha of land in rural area and 10 kathas of land in urban area along with six room building for the High School was prescribed alongwith other requirements. It is, however, absolutely clear that these conditions of recognition laid down in the Government resolution dated 18th October, 1976 could have been made applicable only for Sanskrit schools which came to be established after 18.10.1976 and were to be recognized on the basis of the aforementioned resolution dated 18.10.1976. 16. The picture will not be complete if this Court does not take into notice the Rules framed by the State Government, Bihar Arajkiyay Sanskrit Vidyalaya Niyamawali, 1993 framed under section 22 of the Act, wherein one of the requirements for grant of recognition was 15 decimals of land in rural area and 6 decimals of land in urban area for primary school, 13 decimals of land in rural area and 15 decimals of land in urban area for middle school and 1 acre of land in rural area and 45 decimals of land in urban area for a High School. Again the said requirement of land and building or other conditions laid down in 1993 Rules which came into force on 18.6.1994 could not have been given a retrospective operation and as such, this Court must hold that the cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition of the school of the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of land could not have been made a ground for cancellation of recognition. 17. Coming to the next aspect as with regard to number of students this Court would hold that in absence of any particular details that again could not have been made the ground for cancelling/ withdrawing of recognition of the school. 17. Coming to the next aspect as with regard to number of students this Court would hold that in absence of any particular details that again could not have been made the ground for cancelling/ withdrawing of recognition of the school. In this context reference may also be made to an order dated 24.3.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 5133/2003, Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit vs. State & ors., wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the ground of cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition on the basis of presence of number of students in the school had recorded as follows” “By the impugned order, Annexure 7, recognition of the many schools including that of the petitioner’s school was cancelled on the ground that on the date of inspection students as were present were less than 70 per cent. There is no dispute that 124 students were registered with the petitioner’s school on the date of inspection and 72 of them attended the school. Accordingly, it may be possible that 70 per cent of the students attended the school on the date of the inspection but that cannot be reason for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school. In the matter of absence of the students on a particular date the school cannot be blamed. For non-attendance of 30 per cent students on the particular date the school cannot be blamed. Therefore, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of recognition of the petitioner’s school. In those circumstances in so far as impugned decision, being Annexure 7 to the writ petition, deals with cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school, the same is quashed.” 18. Counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated 24.3.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 5133/2003 has been given effect to by the Board by issuing the consequential order No. 6268 dated 18.9.2007 after the matter was placed in the meeting of the Board on 24.4.2007. 19. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit (supra) so far it relates to cancellation on the ground of number of students would also be squarely applicable to the face of the appellant- writ petitioner. 20. 19. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit (supra) so far it relates to cancellation on the ground of number of students would also be squarely applicable to the face of the appellant- writ petitioner. 20. In that view of the matter, this Court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge would quash the order of cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition of the school of the petitioner, namely, Anand Sanskrit Uchchya Vidhyalaya, Mirjapur, Raj Nagar, Madhubani.” 61. It has to be also noted that the case of a Sanskrit school of the lot of 86 Sanskrit schools, namely, Vinod Tara Sanskrit Uchcha Vid., Mangrauni, Madhubani as against its same order of derecognition have been separately disposed of by order dated 6.4.2011 in CWJC No. 13 of 2009 and the same impugned order of de-recogntion has already been quashed by this Court. Subsequently, the State Government by the order dated 5.3.2012 has also found the aforesaid school fit for recognition in the lot of fifteen out of 84 schools as explained above. 62. Thus, apart from the fact that the impugned order passed by the Board de-recognizing the lot of two 2 of the 86 schools as noted above, has already been qushed by this Court, it would be found that even in view of the order passed by the State Government on 5.3.2012, the reasons which had weighed upon the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to pass his order dated 15.6.2002 for cancelling the recognition of the 84 schools have not remained the same in the order passed by the State Government on 5.3.2012. It thus becomes clear that whatever had weighed on the Chairman of the Board in passing the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 were not capable of being approved by the State Government. The importance of the order of the State Government in the matter of recognition of a Sanskrit school cannot be minimized, inasmuch as, in terms of Section 6(2)(a) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 has been vested in the Board only with the prior approval of the State Government. 63. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussions as also the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Kalika Pd. 63. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussions as also the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Kalika Pd. Singh (supra), there would be no difficulty in holding that the impugned orders dated 15.6.2002 and 21.7.2008 passed by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and the State Government respectively are on fact and in law and as such cannot be sustained, inasmuch as:- (i) The order dated 15.6.2002 is wholly without jurisdiction because the Chairman of the Board in person has no power to either grant recognition or to cancel the recognition of any Sanskrit school which was already deemed to be a recognized Sanskrit school in terms of Section 25(4) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. (ii) The ratification of such illegal order by the State Government by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 is equally bad and unsustainable, inasmuch as, an order which is void ab initio cannot be cured by applying the principle of ratification. (iii) Both of the impugned orders even otherwise factually incorrect in view of the subsequent orders passed by the State Government on 5.3.2012 wherein the reasons given by the Chairman of the Board in the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 have not weighed upon the State Government either while taking a decision for cancellation of recognition of 69 of such 84 schools while restoring recognition of 15 of the rest of 84 schools, specially when the Board had cancelled the recognition of all 84 schools. 64. This Court having held that both the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 and 21.7.2008 passed by the Chairman of the Board and the State Government respectively to be bad, it had no difficulty in allowing all these writ applications with a direction to the Board and the State Government to re-consider the issue relating to recognition of all these 84 schools but then as the State Government and the Board have also made its exhaustive exercise in terms of the order passed by this Court from time to time as discussed above, it would be also necessary to take into consideration as to whether the ultimate order passed by the State Government on 5.3.2012 can be sustained. As noted above, the reasons given in the order dated 5.3.2012 is non-fulfillment of the conditions laid down either in the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 or in the Government resolution dated 18.10.1976. As noted above, the reasons given in the order dated 5.3.2012 is non-fulfillment of the conditions laid down either in the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 or in the Government resolution dated 18.10.1976. The provision of recognition made in the aforementioned two resolutions have already been extracted above and, therefore, even if the State Government had found non-fulfillment of the concerned resolution either of the year 1956 or 1976 to be the reason for cancelling the recognition of 84 sanskrit schools, it was required to record specific reason while passing such order. A mere editorial comment in the order dated 5.3.2012 as with regard to the non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of recognition laid down in the 1956 resolution or 1976 resolution cannot be held to be application of mind. Thus, the order dated 5.3.2012 is primarily bad only on the ground of its being vague and completely non-speaking. 65. Such order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 is also bad because when the State Government has maintained the order of cancellation of 69 of 84 schools on account of non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of recognition either in the Resolution dated 11.8.1956 or 18.10.1976, it has definitely kept in mind that all these schools were having deemed recognition in terms of Section 25(4) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1982 and cancellation of recognition of these old recognized schools, therefore, could have been made only on the basis of the rules made by the State Government. As noted above, the only rule in this regard was framed by the State Government in the year 1993 and notified in the gazette on 28.6.1994. 66. As discussed above, these rules provide for cancellation of recognition on a specific ground, namely, (i) violation of rules of reservation prescribed by the State Government in the appointment of teachers/non-teaching employees in the recognized schools (ii) if the number of students is less than prescribed minimum number of students or such number is wholly disproportionate to the existing building of the school or number of the teachers of school (iii) if the Managing Committee disobeys the orders and direction given by the Board (iv) any such ground which would reflect mismanagement adversely effecting the work of teaching in the school. 67. 67. In view of the fact that 1993 Rules do not envisage any fifth ground for cancellation of recognition, the State Government could not have passed the impugned order dated 5.3.2012 without specifying which one or more of the four ground of de-recognition was to be made applicable in the cases of 69 Sanskrit schools. Thus, from perusal of the order dated 5.3.2012 also, it is clear that the order for de-recognizing 69 out of 84 schools have not been made on the basis of grounds mentioned in the 1993 Rules. 68. It has to be kept in mind that such cancellation of recognition on the specified four grounds in Rule 6 of 1993 Rules had to be passed only after affording a reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why the existing recognition of such Sanskrit schools should not be cancelled. Thus, in terms of Rule-6 of 1993 Rules, a specific show-cause was required to be issued by the Board disclosing which one or more of the four grounds mentioned in Rule-6 of the 1993 Rules was to be made applicable. That alone in fact could amount to affording an adequate reasonable opportunity in terms of Rule 6 of the 1993 Rules. Admittedly, that has not been done. In fact, the Rule 6(1) as with regard to violation of prescribed policy of reservation in government service in the appointment or Rule 6(3) prescribing violation of direction and orders of the Board have not been made as a ground for cancellation of recognition of any of the 69 out of 84 schools either by the Board or even by the State Government in any of the impugned orders. 69. As with regard to the application of Rule 6(2), the same cannot be made ground for any school which was recognized prior to coming into force of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1982, inasmuch as, the 1956 Resolution did not prescribe any number of students as a condition precedent for grant of recognition. 69. As with regard to the application of Rule 6(2), the same cannot be made ground for any school which was recognized prior to coming into force of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1982, inasmuch as, the 1956 Resolution did not prescribe any number of students as a condition precedent for grant of recognition. It is only in the schools which were recognized under the Government Resolution dated 18.10.1976 that the test of number of students could be made basis for cancellation of recognition but, then, there also the clause of compulsory attendance of 70% being confined only in the case of high schools (Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya) and not at all applicable in the case of primary school (Prathmik Sanskrit Vidyalaya) or Primary cum Middle School (Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya), the provisions made in Rule 6(2) cannot be made applicable for cancellation of recognition by applying rule of thumb. There being a complete absence of such consideration even in the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 as with regard to the applicability of Rule 6(2) of the 1993 Rules for any one of the 69 sanskrit schools, it can be safely said that the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 is also contrary to Rule 6 of the 1993 Rules, which alone is the provision for cancellation of recognition in terms of Section 25 read with Section 6(2)(b) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. 70. This Court would fail in its duty if it does not take into notice the provision of Rule 6(4) of the 1993 Rules which in its wide sweep may cover all sort of mismanagement in the recognized schools which would adversely affect the teaching work in the school. It is, however, to be noted that for exercise of such wide sweeping power, there has to be a very cautious application, inasmuch as, in such cases, first of all in the show-cause notice, the manner of mismanagement prevailing in such recognized schools has to be disclosed and then it has to be also brought to the notice of such recognized schools that such mismanagement in the school has been adversely affecting the teaching work. In case of none of the 69 schools out of 84 schools whose recognition has been cancelled by the State Government by the order dated 5.3.2012, there is any indication of prevailing mismanagement in these recognized schools, which had affected their teaching work. 71. Thus, there would be no difficulty in holding that the order passed by the State Government on 5.3.2012 de-recognizing 69 out of 84 schools is also bad and cannot be sustained either on fact or in law. 72. Having held that the impugned order of derecognition of all the 86 of the lot of 429 old recognized non-governmental schools is bad both on fact and in law, it automatically follows that the same impugned order cannot be allowed to operate even for rest of the non-petitioner schools, and their cases would also require re-consideration in the light of the observations and findings given above. As would be evidenced from the foregoing discussions that out of 86 schools, the cases of two of the schools have already been decided earlier in CWJC No. 5133 of 2003 and LPA No. 366 of 2009 and of remaining eighty-four fifteen including ten petitioner schools have already been restored their recognition in the order of the State Government dated 5.3.2012 and only 69 schools were left derecognised and out of them 29 are already petitioners in different writ petitioner and are covered by this order. Rest of the 40 schools are also aggrieved by the same impugned orders of their de-recognition of their schools, as clearly shown in Paragraph no. 56 of this judgment. It would, therefore, be necessary for both the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and the State Government to re-consider their cases afresh by strictly applying the provisions of Rule 6 of 1993 Rules wherein each of the schools if necessary must be given a show-casue notice by the Secretary of the Board disclosing the materials for cancellation of their recognition on any one or more of the four grounds mentioned in Rule 6 of 1993 Rules. 73. 73. As a logical outcome of the aforementioned direction, the two main impugned orders dated 15.6.2002 and 5.3.2012 cancelling the recognition in respect of those 40 non-petitioners schools shall no longer operate but then the teaching and non-teaching staffs of those non-petitioners schools shall also not become entitled for payment of their salary on the ground of this order unless a fresh proceeding a decision in respect of them is taken and a fresh proceeding if necessary by way of a show cause notice in terms of Rule 6 of 1993 is initiated and completed against them. As these non petitioners schools are facing complete uncertainty not only in the matter of teaching but also in sending its students for appearance in the Board examination, such exercise in respect of 40 non-petitioners schools of the lot of 69 schools covered by the order dated 5.3.2012, must be completed by the Board and the State Government within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 74. While doing this fresh exercise the Respondents authorities of the State Government and Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board must bear in mind the quality, substance, content and strength of Sanskrit and the perennial need of its being taught in the schools of Bihar. It must take into account that the Sanskrit Commission constituted by the Government of India in its report in 1957 had observed that the Indian people and the Indian civilization were born, so to say, in the lap of Sanskrit and it went "hand in hand with the historical development of the Indian people, and gave the noblest expression to their mind and culture which has come down to our day as an inheritance of priceless order for India, nay, for the entire world” and its being “great mental and spritual link” and the elder sister of Greek and Latin, and cousin of English, French and Russian. 75. The broad framework of our education policy as accepted by the Central Government regarding Sanskrit, in the 1968 policy qua this language had also laid down that: “Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to the growth and development of Indian languages and its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the country, facilities for its teaching at the school and university stages should be offered on more liberal basis. Development of new methods of teaching the language should be encouraged, and the possibility explored of including the study of Sanskrit in those courses (such as modern Indian philosophy) at the first and second degree stages, where such knowledge is useful.” 76. Again the 1986 policy had to say as below in this regard: “Research in indology, the Humanities and Social Sciences will receive adequate support. To fulfil the need for the synthesis of knowledge, inter-disciplinary research will be encouraged. Efforts will be made to delve into India’s ancient fund of knowledge and to relate it to contemporary reality. This effort will imply the development of facilities for the intensive study of Sanskrit.” 77. As with regard to the importance of teaching of Sanskrit, the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development and Anr. reported in 1994(6) SCC 579 had also held as follows:- “7. As we are concerned in these cases with the teaching in the secondary schools, we may say something about the importance of education in its early stages. It has been well recognized that it is this education which lays the foundation for a full and intense life and so this education must carefully keep alive the spark of curiosity and fan it into a beautiful, bright flame whenever it comes. It has been stated that it is the education received in early stages which widens the contacts of child or youth with the surroundings of the world; and with every new and fruitful contact with the world of things, the world of men and the world of ides, life of the young becomes richer and broader. It is early education which seeks to broaden the mind by exposing the learner to the world of thought and reflection, which can inspire him with lofty idealism by giving him the glimpses of a good life which a worthy education is capable of bringing" 78. Thus it would become absolutely clear that Sanskrit has place of its own in our educational ethos. In this regard, it would be also useful to quote a passage from the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra), which reads as follows:- "11. Thus it would become absolutely clear that Sanskrit has place of its own in our educational ethos. In this regard, it would be also useful to quote a passage from the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra), which reads as follows:- "11. It is well known that Sanskrit is a mother of all Indo-Aryan languages and it is this language in which our Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads have been written and in which Kalidas, Bhavbuti, Banabhatta and Dandi wrote their classics. Teachings of Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhawacharya, Nimbark and Vallabhacharya would not have been woven into the fabric of Indian culture if Sanskrit would not have been available to them as a medium of expressing their thoughts." 79. There would be infact no need to dilate further on the importance of Sanskrit in our national ethos in view of what was stated by no less than a person, the first Prime Minister of the country Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the following words:- "If I was asked what is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly - it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and so long as this endures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue." 80. It has to be also kept in mind that teaching of Sanskrit alone can achieve the object of Article 351 of the Constitution of India which castes duty on the union to promote the spread of Hindi by drawing whenever necessary or desirable for its vocabulary on Sanskrit. The teaching of Sanskrit in this State with the patronage in fact has been extended to the non-governmental Sanskrit schools right from 1915 and thus on completion of almost a century thereafter, nothing should be done in a systematic manner to dismantle the entire fabric of teaching in Sanskrit in these schools. Encouragement to Sanskrit is also necessary because of its being one of the language included in the Eight Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is in fact on account of this that the official education policy has consistently highlighted the need of study of Sanskrit in order to preserve cultural heritage of India. 81. Encouragement to Sanskrit is also necessary because of its being one of the language included in the Eight Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is in fact on account of this that the official education policy has consistently highlighted the need of study of Sanskrit in order to preserve cultural heritage of India. 81. Thus, it is for both the Board and the Government now to consider and evolve its policy to ensure these very old 86 Sanskrit schools should not be allowed to die down on the basis of inconsistent government policy and these institutions should be preserved in the manner they were allowed to continue for at least last 100 years by continuing State patronage by way of payment of salary and emoluments to its teaching and non-teaching staff within the prescribed staffing pattern. This Court would not like to add anything more in this regard but would only observe that the old recognized Sanskrit schools in this State has a glorious past and should not be now ridiculed and buried, inasmuch as, they also tend to achieve the avowed object of the State in securing fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21A of the Constitution of India ensuring free and compulsory education to its citizen up to the age of fifteen years. This Court, therefore, firmly believes that the whole matter requires a reconsideration with an open mind. 82. This Court would accordingly direct the competent authorities of the State Government and the Board to change their mindset to the issue in hand relating to functioning of the Sanskrit schools. It has to be borne in mind by all the concerned authorities that teaching of Sanskrit to the present generation of school going students is the need of the hour and in fact necessary for nurturing out the cultural heritage of this country. They must remind to themselves that because of which even the official education policy of the Government of India has consistently highlighted the need of study of Sanskrit. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993(1) SCC 645 , the Apex Court had held that education is a preparation of living and for life here and hereafter and education is at once a social and political necessity. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993(1) SCC 645 , the Apex Court had held that education is a preparation of living and for life here and hereafter and education is at once a social and political necessity. It also observed that victories are gained, peace is preserved, progress is achieved, civilization is built up and history is made, not in the battlefields but in educational institutions which are seed-beds of culture. 83. Having thus dealt with the entire issue of recognition of Sanskrit Schools in Bihar and the consequential de-recognition of 86 schools, this court would now examine the individual facts of all these cases being heard together seperately and in course of doing so it would firstly take up the two illustrative cases namely C.W.J.C. No. 1727 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 3359 of 2009, wherein all the parties have not only filed their affidavits but the inspection report by the three men committee in respect of all the derecognised 86 Sanskrit schools under the impugned orders have been brought on record. C.W.J.C NO. 1727 of 2009 84. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Board and Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the State. 85. Mr. Jha has submitted that the recognition of the school petitioner has been cancelled after more than 80 years of its being recognized on a wholly flimsy ground without there being any specific show-cause in terms of Rule 6 of the 1993 Rules. He has also relied on certain findings of the Three Men Committee as with regard to the number of students and the shape and size of the exhisting building of the schools, which according to him would not warrant such a drastic action of de-recognition of this very old school. 86. Learned counsel for the Board and learned counsel for the State have, however, dwelt upon the aspect that if the school does not fulfil the basic requirement as laid down in the 1956 resolution, it cannot be allowed to have its recognition. 86. Learned counsel for the Board and learned counsel for the State have, however, dwelt upon the aspect that if the school does not fulfil the basic requirement as laid down in the 1956 resolution, it cannot be allowed to have its recognition. In this regard, they too relied on the inspection report of the Three Men Committee constituted by this Court and have submitted that if the State Government after considering the findings of the Three Men Committee Report and the recommendation made by the Board thereon had taken a decision, the same would require no interference. 87. Having regard to the materials on record that this School was established in the year 01.04.1926 and was a recognized Sanskrit School from the very inception i.e. 01.04.1926, this Court would find it difficult to approve the solitary reason for de-recognition of this School by the State Government as explained in the office order dated 05.03.2012, wherein, the reason for de-recognition of the School reads as follows:- ^^fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk ,'kksfl;s'ku dk xBu Lo:i ,oa d`R; fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx dk ladYi (Resolution) No. 4124 fnukad 11-08-1956 ds vkyksd esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dk vHkko jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA** 88. Counsel for the State in this regard has mentioned that it is only the following two requirement of the Government resolution dated 11.08.1956, which has weighed upon the Government refusing to restore the recognition of the petitioner School namely, Saraswati Bhawan Jai Kant Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Chikna in the district of Madhubani. He has in this regard referred to paragraph no. 15(iv) and 15(v) under the heading General condition of Recognition of the aforementioned Government resolution dated 11.08.1956 reading as follows:- “That it is housed in a suitable building of its own, which is free from objection on sanitary grounds and affords sufficient accommodation; That in case it has no building of its own, the management provides a satisfactory guarantee or proof that it will have an independent building of its own within a reasonable period of time;” 89. In the considered opinion of this court, the Government could not have used the aforementioned two conditions for derecognizing the School of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Three Man Committee constituted by this Court consisting of the Secretary of Bihar, Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the Deputy Director of Secondary Education and the District Education Officer of Madhubani in their joint report dated 29.03.2011, on the basis of the inspection of the School dated 21.02.2011 had found the School to have not only one bigha of land but also a constructed building of four rooms with asbestos roof at the top. 90. This Court is not going into the other findings of the Committee because the Government had rejected the case of restoring of recognition to the petitioner School only on the ground of lack of building by way of insufficient infrastructure. As noted above, the School has not only land of its own but also building having four rooms. There is also no difficulty in understanding that the requirement of the School being only of having three classrooms for class-8, 9 and 10 can be easily met by those four rooms. In fact, when 1956 Government resolution does not provide any yard-stick of number of rooms and the nature for construction of the building, the petitioner School cannot be derecognized on the ground of lack of building having four rooms as found by the Three Man Committee constituted by this Court. 91. It has to be kept in mind that the Three Man Committee had given its adverse finding against the School on the issue of number of students and the improper manner of teaching. Three Men Committee in fact had given its finding as with regard to the petitioner School that most of the students of class-VIII found in course of the inspection of the School were actually students of another School whose presence was secured to impress the number of students reading in the petitioner School. Lack of maintenance of proper routine was another reason for drawing adverse inference by the Three Man Committee as with regard to the School being functional. 92. Lack of maintenance of proper routine was another reason for drawing adverse inference by the Three Man Committee as with regard to the School being functional. 92. The said finding of the Three Man Committee, however, was not approved by the State Government in the order and the solitary reason for rejecting the case of restoration of recognition of the School of the petitioner was lack of adequate infrastructure namely, the building as has been explained by the learned counsel for the State. 93. It has to be taken note of that one of the safest criteria of the School being functional can be the number of regular students appearing in the Madhyama Examination after completion of teaching in class-X of the School. The Three Man Committee had not only taken figures of the five years of number of students reading in class-X and those who had appeared and passed in such Madhyama Examination but also the number of regular students in this School even as per the figure given by learned counsel for the Board on the basis of verification from the records of the Board, would go to show that there are 48 regular students in the year 2005, 26 in 2006, 70 in 2007 and 13 in 2009. 94. Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the parties would object to the said number of students in the board’s report and would stick to the figures shown in the Three Man Committee report but this Court will proceed on the basis of the Board’s figure and would find that on the basis of such number of regular students in class-X, the School cannot be said to be non-functional. Let it be noted that in the Sanskrit School the number of students under 1956 Government resolution was not prescribed and when ultimately it got prescribed by the Government circular dated 18.10.1976, the requirement of 60 students was good enough for the existence of the School consisting of class-VIII, IX and X. In that view of the matter, when the Government also did not treat the number of students to be the safe criteria for rejecting the case of recognition of the petitioner School, this Court must hold that the Three Man Committee report as with regard to lack of students could also not have been made the ground for derecognition of the petitioner School. 95. 95. It has to be kept in mind that when in the year 2002, the first order of derecognition was passed the number of students was not made the ground for derecognition and in fact only the lack of building and land was made the basis for School being derecognized. In fact, the said reason was again reiterated in the subsequent order of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated 21.07.2008, which had lead to filing of this writ application. Thus, in view of the material findings recorded by the Three Man Committee constituted by this Court, the only reason for derecognition of the petitioner School in the impugned order either passed on 21.07.2008 or by the present order of the Government dated 05.03.2012 cannot be sustained when the School is said to have its own land and building sufficient for its finding. 96. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned individual considerations as also the reasons already given in the preceding paragraphs while making general observations with regard to the impugned orders, it has to be held that the impugned orders as with regard to the de-recognition of the school petitioner is bad on fact and in law and is, accordingly, quashed. The recognition of the petitioner school is directed to be restored with all consequential benefits to be extended to the petitioner school including the payment of salary of the approved teaching and non-teaching staff of this school as was being made to them prior to 15.6.2002. This exercise of payment of arrears and current salary must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. I.A No. 2587 of 2012 in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 97. After some arguments Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener School i.e. Karpuri Thakur Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Bahadurpur Choura Maharail, P.S Jhanjharpur in the district of Madhubani seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to enable the applicant intervener to file its substantive writ application assailing the impugned order which is the subject matter of this writ application. 98. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. I.A No. 6208 of 2011in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 99. 98. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. I.A No. 6208 of 2011in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 99. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener School i.e. Sri Baidyanath Sanskrit Prathemick Sah Madhya Vidyalay, Bhelahi, Raxaul East Champaran, seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to enable the applicant intervener to file its substantive writ application assailing the impugned order which is the subject matter of this writ application. 100. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. 101. With the aforesaid observations and directions C.W.J.C. No. 1727/2009 is accordingly allowed. CWJC No. 3359 of 2009 102. Heard Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter to be referred to as „the Board’) and Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the State. 103. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Bihar derecognizing the petitioner school, namely, Godawari Ramsevak Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya, Panchratan, Post Ghorbanki, P.S. Vasopatti, in the district of Madhubani, it has been submitted that the reason for de-recognition of the petitioner school of either being less than 70% of students or there being no library, was factually incorrect and thus, the impugned order of de-recognition cannot be sustained. 104. As noted above, this Court had constituted Three Men Committee for holding inspection of the school and the Committee in its report dated 26.3.2011 had found not only the existence of a library but also 29 students to be present who were said to be student of Class 6 to 10 of the school. 104. As noted above, this Court had constituted Three Men Committee for holding inspection of the school and the Committee in its report dated 26.3.2011 had found not only the existence of a library but also 29 students to be present who were said to be student of Class 6 to 10 of the school. The Three Men Committee in fact had in its finding and recommendation given an adverse report against the petitioner school by recording as follows:- ^^16- earO; %& fo|ky; }kjk f’k{kd mifLFkfr] Nk= mifLFkfr ,oa ukekadu iath ek= gh voyksdu djk;k x;kA blds vfrfjDr tkWp lfefr }kjk ekx djus ij vU; dksbZ fo|ky;h vfHkys[k iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk ugha fn[kyk;k x;kA fu/kkZfjr ‚krksZa ds vuqlkj v/;kiu dk;Z gsrq de ls de rhu ‘kkL=h ;ksX;rk/kkjh f’k{kdksa dh vfuok;Zrk gS] tcfd fo|ky; esa ek= ,d O;kdj.kkpk;Z f'k{kd gh inLFkkfir gSA vr% f’k{kd ls lacaf/kr ‚krksZa dsk Hkh iwjk ugha djrk gSA Nk=ksa dh ‘kSf{kd miyfC/k larks”kizn ugha ik;k x;kA iqLrdky; ds vUrxZr ,d Hkh iqLrd ugha ik;k x;kA fo|ky; esa v/;kiu gsrq oxZ&rkfydk Hkh la/kkfjr ugha Fkh] ftlls bl ckr dh iqf”V gksrh gS fd Nk=ksa dks de ls de ikWp ?kaVs dh i<+kbZ izfr dk;Z fnol dks gksrk gksA fo|ky; }kjk e/;ek ijh{kk esa Nk=@Nk=kvksa dh n'kkZ;h la[;k ds vuqikr esa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ;Fkk & dejsa] ‘;ke&iV~V vkfn Ik;kZIr ugha gSA fo|ky; esa v/;kiu gsrq i;kZIr miLdj Hkh miyC/k ugha gSA fo|ky; }kjk f’k{kd@f’k{kdsrj dfeZ;ksa dks fu;fer osru Hkqxrku djus ds laca/k esa lk{;@vfHkys[k ekax djus ij tkap lfefr ds le{k miLFkfir ugha fd;k x;kA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izLohd`fr iznku djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** 105. When the aforementioned report of the Committee was placed before the State Government, it did not agree with the recommendation of the Committee as with regard to refusal in restoring recognition on the ground mentioned by the Committee and the officials of the State Government had given a separate reason for not restoring the recognition of the petitioner school which reads as follows:- ^^vjktdh; laLd`r f’k{k.k laLFkkvksa dh izLohd`fr fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; esa vyx&cxy ds fo|ky; ds Nk= jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA** 106. A question would, therefore, arise that if the ultimate reason given in the impugned order and the fresh order passed by the State Government dated 5.3.2012 are at variance, inasmuch as, now the lack of library is no longer a ground for de-recognition of the petitioner school, can this Court uphold the impugned order of de-recognition? 107. Admittedly, the petitioner school had received permanent recognition by an order dated 8.7.1977 and, therefore, it will be governed by the Government Resolution contained in letter no.2291 dated 18.10.1976, wherein, the condition for grant of recognition of different types of Sanskrit Schools has been specified. As with regard to the high school which the petitioner school is, the condition no.2 prescribes that there has to be a library in the school of at least books having value of Rs.1,000/- in which the text book and other useful books for the students must be available. In view of the latest Three Men Committee report, it cannot be said that the school does not have a library and, therefore, the condition of library as prescribed in the Government resolution dated 18.10.1976 is fulfilled by the petitioner school. 108. As with regard to the reason given in the latest order dated 5.3.2012 as noted above that an effort was made to show the presence of the number of students in the school by boring students of other neighboring school, the same cannot be the criteria for de-recognition the school. 109. As noted above, one of the condition no.7 was that there would be requirement of minimum 60 students in the school and out of that, the presence of 70% of the total number of students would be necessary. There is nothing on record to show that the number of students admitted in the school was less than 60 and in fact if the figures given by the Five Men Committee even on that day of inspection is taken into account, the same exceeds the figure of 60 in view of the objection finding recorded by the Three Men Committee that there were 18, 10, 11, 19, 39 students admitted in Class 6 to 10 of the petitioner school. That would mean that there were more than 60 students already admitted. That would mean that there were more than 60 students already admitted. It is true that on that particular day, the number of students present were less than 70% of the total number of admitted students but then figure of one day’s attendence could not be made basis for de-recognition of the petitioner school. 110. As a matter of fact, this Court as with regard to the aspect as to whether the petitioner school had remained functional had evolved a safe criteria of finding out it from the total number of regular students, who had appeared in the Madhyama Examination conducted by the Board after completing their courses up to Class-10 in the school. From the statistics given by the counsel for the Board along with the latest affidavit, it becomes clear that the number of regular students appearing in the Madhyama examination from this school in last five years were not only in excess of the figure of 60 but in fact were sufficient to fulfil the requirement of the school being functional. It is the affidavit of the Board itself that in the petitioner school, there were 108 students who had appeared in Madhyama examination of 2005, 144 in the year 2006, 131 in the year 2007, 104 in the year 2008 and 73 in the year 2009. Thus, the appearance of number of students in Madhyama examination would itself prove the petitioner school of its remaining fully functional. 111. The percentage of result of successful students in Madhyama examination shown in the Three Men Committee would by itself go to show that the teaching work in the school was conducted satisfactorily, inasmuch as, passing of 102 students in the year 2005 Madhyama examination, 137 in the year 2006 examination, 123 in 2007 examination, 74 in 2008 examination and 60 in 2009 examination would be reflective of the satisfactory standard of teaching in the school. 112. In this background, if the solitary reason given in the impugned order passed on 5.3.2012 for getting the school de-recognized is examined, it would become clear that the Government has somehow not properly considered the case of the petitioner school and has taken a decision without considering the objective findings of the Three Men Committee. 113. 112. In this background, if the solitary reason given in the impugned order passed on 5.3.2012 for getting the school de-recognized is examined, it would become clear that the Government has somehow not properly considered the case of the petitioner school and has taken a decision without considering the objective findings of the Three Men Committee. 113. It is true that even the Three Men Committee had drawn certain adverse inference as with regard to the lack of adequate number of teaching staff in the school but then for that the petitioner school alone cannot be blamed, inasmuch as, if the school in question along with other 85 derecognized schools had remained in the zone of dispute from the year 2002 on the ground of facing de-recognition and consequential stoppage of payment of salary to its teachers, no wonder its qualified teachers may have left the school or could have retired whereafter no fresh appointment could have have made by the school in absence of the approval to be given by the Board. In any event, the number of students in this school appearing in the Madhyama examination as regular candidates having been duly verified by the officials of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha board and also put on affidavit, would require re-consideration of the case of the petitioner by both the Board and the State Government. 114. The impugned order de-recognizing the petitioner school, therefore, cannot be approved by this Court, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which now, in keeping with the spirit of Section-6 of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha board, 1981, shall once again examine the case of the petitioner school in isolation for continuation of its recognition and would seek the necessary approval of the State Government as prescribed under Section 6 of the Act. It is, however, made clear that the impugned order of de-recognition of the petitioner school having been quashed, any decision with regard to the de-recognition of the school must be circumscribed well within the parameter of Rule 6 of 1993 Rules as discussed above. 115. At this stage, Mr. It is, however, made clear that the impugned order of de-recognition of the petitioner school having been quashed, any decision with regard to the de-recognition of the school must be circumscribed well within the parameter of Rule 6 of 1993 Rules as discussed above. 115. At this stage, Mr. Durga Nand Jha would submit that the petitioner school in fact had fulfilled the requisite condition as laid down in the resolution dated 18.10.1976 the date of permanent recognition but in course of time, the old building and infrastructure had become dilapidated and, therefore, a new building with two Pucca rooms have been constructed and the founders of the school with the public support are also prepared to construct remaining rooms for making the school functional at an early date. He has also submitted that even in absence of the number of rooms, the teaching work has not been affected, inasmuch as, the school has been running in shift to accommodate the students of the different class. 116. Mr. A.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Board has submitted that if the petitioner school would give an undertaking to remove all the deficiencies within a prescribed period of time, the Board may, in keeping with the satisfactory performance of the students of the school in the Madhyama examination, would consider the matter sympathetically for continuation of the recognition. 117. Mr. K.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the Board would submit a satisfactory report of fulfilling the terms and conditions by the petitioner school, the Government will take the same into consideration for taking a fresh decision for continuation of recognition of the school. 118. In view of the aforementioned submissions of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this writ application C.W.J.C. No. 3359 of 2009 is disposed of with a direction to re-conider the case of the petitioner in the matter of its continuation of recognition in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. This Court would direct that a final decision as with regard to the continuation of recognition of the petitioner school must be taken as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 119. This Court would direct that a final decision as with regard to the continuation of recognition of the petitioner school must be taken as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 119. Having thus made the overall survey of derecognition of 86 Sanskrit schools and disposed of the two leading illustrative cases namely C.W.J.C. No. 1727 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 3359 of 2009, this court from tommorrow would now take up hearing of remaining cases of 36 school petitioners which are also part of the batch of these fourteen writ petitions namely, CWJC No. 1615 of 2009, CWJC No. 1670 of 2009, CWJC No. 1709 of 2009, CWJC No. 2690 of 2009, CWJC No. 4242 of 2009, CWJC No. 1921 of 2009, CWJC No. 2198 of 2009, CWJC No. 2202 of 2009, CWJC No. 2259 of 2009, CWJC No. 2291 of 2009, CWJC No. 19987 of 2011 and CWJC No. 2697 of 2009, inasmuch as the pleading in all of them is complete and thus they have to be disposed not only in the light of the general observations made hereinabove in this judgment but also in the light of their individual facts which essentially has to be also considered for deciding the validity their respective orders of derecognition.