ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The School in question, Deodhira Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, situated in village Deep, in the District of Madhubani, is the petitioner which has assailed its order of de-recognition passed on 15.6.2002 and reiterated on 5.3.2012. 3. At the outset, it would be necessary to record here that a detailed order as with regard to the entire issue of de-recognition of 86 Sanskrit schools covered by the common impugned orders including the school petitioners of this case has been passed by this Court on 10.4.2012 in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 and its 13 analogous cases including the present case and thus, the aforementioned order dated 10.4.2012 shall be treated to be part of the present order. 4. It is an admitted fact that the said school was established in the year 1941 and had received approval and recognition of the Bihar Sanskrit Association on 10.10.1956 in terms of the Government Resolution No. 4124 dated 11th August, 1956. The said school is said to have remained functional and its teaching and non-teaching staff also as approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board were receiving payment of salary from the grants made available by the State Government for recognize non-Government Sanskrit High School with effect from 1.4.1981. The school was again one of 429 Sanskrit schools which was taken over by the State Government as a Government Sanskrit School by the ordinance dated 18.2.1989. The School continued as a Government Sanskrit school till 30.4.1992 and when the successive ordinances were not reviewed after 30.4.1992 the school once again had reverted back to its own status as was also held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra & ors. vs. The State of Bihar & anor., reported in 1994(2) PLJR 359. While the status of this school in the lot of 429 taken over schools were continuing the Government had constituted a Committee for examining viability of its take over and the Collectors of the respective district have been authorized to get the schools inspected for taking decision relating to take over of the services of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the school. At that stage while the ordinance was continuing the Collector of Madhubani District had submitted an adverse report popularly known as Pratikul report for the school in question. At that stage while the ordinance was continuing the Collector of Madhubani District had submitted an adverse report popularly known as Pratikul report for the school in question. In fact out of 429 Sanskrit schools the inspection report of the Collectors had found only 341 schools worth take over and 86 schools including the school of the petitioner were handed out a Pratikul report on the basis of which payment of salary of such Pratikul school had been held up. It was in this regard a Division of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) had held that this teaching and non-teaching employees of such 429 schools, who were already receiving payment of salary prior to 18.12.1989 would continue to get their salary till the school remained recognized, inasmuch as even after the schools have reverted back as a private recognized Sanskrit school the Government decision for making payment of salary and emolument with effect from 1.4.1981 had remained intact. 5. The payment of salary of approved teaching and non-teaching employees also was continuing till the impugned order came to be passed on 15.6.2002. Such order of de-recognition of the petitioner school was based on three grounds, namely:- (i) Presence of number of students was less than 70%. (ii) The reserved fund of the school was inadequate. (iii) There was an adverse (Pratikul) report of the Collector of the District as with regard to this school. 6. As the said order was in violation of the principles of natural justice the same was stayed as a whole and therefore, this school had continued to function. As noted in the judgment dated 10.4.2012 in CWJC No. 1727 of 2009 in the case of Saraswati Bhawan Jai Kant Madhyamik Sanskrit Vidyalaya Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. when these cases were being heard together, this Court had constituted a three men Committee to find out the existence of all the 86 schools which was the basic and core issue for continuance of recognition of the schools. The State of Bihar & Ors. when these cases were being heard together, this Court had constituted a three men Committee to find out the existence of all the 86 schools which was the basic and core issue for continuance of recognition of the schools. In the three men Committee report which had inspected the school of the petitioner on 22.2.2011 at 3.15 P.M. it was reported that since the authorities running the school did not produce any record and the inspecting team had visited after the school hours at 3.15 P.M., the school required to be re-inspected especially when in the first glance of the school the inspecting team could not find any building and the Acting Headmaster Sri Kedar Nath Jha had himself informed the members of the three men Committee that the school was functioning in the Radha Krishna and Durga Mandir. The three men Committee report, therefore, also does not in any way improve the case of the school petitioner and ultimately when the said report was examined by the Board and submitted before the Government, the Government in the impugned order while reiterating its decision to de-recognize the school has held that the school itself is not in existence (Astitwahin). 7. Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that such finding of the State Government is based on no cogent material and is ignorance of proven fact that not only the school has remained functional but its students have been regularly appearing in Madhyama Examination. As with regard to lack of building for the school in question it has been explained that earlier there was a building for this school which had collapsed on account of damage to it by ravages of floods and in fact this was also noticed by the three men Committee which had found the building in a dilapidated condition. He has further submitted that there are a number of inspection reports to show that the school was functioning and its students were appearing in the Boards examination and in fact this school itself was a centre of examination of different Sanskrit examination wherein more than 400 students were appearing in such examination. He has further submitted that there are a number of inspection reports to show that the school was functioning and its students were appearing in the Boards examination and in fact this school itself was a centre of examination of different Sanskrit examination wherein more than 400 students were appearing in such examination. He has accordingly canvassed for restoration of recognition of the petitioner school by also highlighting that the school being 70 years old school which has produced a large number of scholar in Sanskrit including a Vice Chancellor should not allowed to die down. 8. Learned counsel for the Board and the State Government, on the other hand, have submitted that a glorious past does not mean an eventful present unless the activities in the school would inspire belief in its regular teaching and also remaining functional. They have accordingly submitted that the decision of the Board and the Government as with regard to de-recognition of the school would require no interference. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court the matter has to be viewed on the basis of the reasons indicated in the impugned orders of derecognition. The impugned order dated 15.6.2002 as noted above has given three reasons, none of which can be supported at least in terms of the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956. The aforesaid Government resolution of 1956 does not talk of requirement of 70% of students to remain compulsorily present nor does it specify any amount of reserved fund for the school and therefore, both the reasons which in fact are deducible only to the subsequent Government resolution dated 18.10.1976 which cannot be made applicable for the petitioner school as it was given recognition in terms of the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956. It has to be noted that in the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 the condition for grant of recognition as also facilitating grand in aid was dealt elaborately in Clause 15 which reads as follows:- “15. Recognition of Sanskrit institutions and award of grand-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 situated outside the State of Bihar shall be eligible for recognition. 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. 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 of 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. 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. 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 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. 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, Bihar Sanskrit Association, so as to teach him not later than the 1st January of the year. 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, Bihar Sanskrit Association, so as to teach 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) Result 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 registers:- (1) Admission register, (2) Daily Attendance Register, (3) Visitor Book, (4) Acquittance Roll of Scholars, (5) Printed Book of Transfer Certificates, (6) Transfer Certificate etc. (7) Attendance Register of teachers, (8) Cash Book, (9) Acquittance 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 Pandits 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 institutions; (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. (g) Remarks in the inspection reports; (h) Contribution of enhanced salary by the Government; (i) The standard expenses laid down for the institutions; (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.” 10. As noted above, in these conditions there is no mention of requirement of number of students or reserved fund and therefore, the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 de-recognizing the school on those two grounds automatically becomes bad. 11. The third and last reason in the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 of there being an adverse report of the Collector will have no relevance, inasmuch as it has been explained above that such report of the Collector was meant only for the purposes of the school being made a Government Sanskrit school as envisaged in Ordinance No. 32 of 1989 and its successive ordinance which remained in force from 18.12.1989 to 30.4.1992. The report of the Collector may have been used while the school was a Government school but after the school again reverted back as a private recognized Sanskrit school the said report by itself could not have been made the basis for de-recognition of the school. 12. Thus all the three reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.6.2002 must be held to be based on non-est and non-existent grounds and accordingly, that decision in the case of the petitioner must be quashed in the light of law laid down in the case of Saraswati Bhawan (supra). 13. As noted above, this Court in order to ascertain the true conditions of these schools and whether they have remained functional and thus entitled to continue for its recognition had constituted a three men Committee comprising of a senior functionary of the State Government, another senior functionary of the Board and the local District Education Officer. 13. As noted above, this Court in order to ascertain the true conditions of these schools and whether they have remained functional and thus entitled to continue for its recognition had constituted a three men Committee comprising of a senior functionary of the State Government, another senior functionary of the Board and the local District Education Officer. The three men Committee has not been able to arrive at any definite conclusion and its report recommending for re-inspection of the school would be of no assistance to decide the issue in question as to whether the recognition of this school should be restored. As noted above, after the aforementioned incomplete three men Committee report the State Government had made its review on all the materials placed before it and has taken a decision to reiterate its earlier order of de-recognition on the ground that the school is not in existence. Counsel for the State has not produced any material on the basis of which the Government had come to the conclusion that the school was not in existence but has only tried to rely on the three men Committee report to show that since the school does not fulfil the requirement of building which was a condition precedent set out in the resolution dated 11.8.1956, it must be inferred that the school is not in existence. 14. True it is that under the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 a Sanskrit school to be recognized was required to have a building but in the case of the petitioner school it is not in doubt that there was a building for the school which was also found in course of inspection in the year 1991 and 1995 by the Governmental authorities. The said old building of 70 years old institution is said to have collapsed due to ravages of flood and that is how the school was made functional in the precincts of a temple. The functioning of the school in temple may have been an old Indian tradition but when a school gets recognition of condition of building, its founders and other persons attached to the management of the school owed a duty to restore the building in order to make the school viable and functional in an effective manner. This Court is not at all impressed with the submission of Mr. This Court is not at all impressed with the submission of Mr. Jha that once the school was taken over by the State Government it was the duty of the State Government to maintain the building and other infra-structure of the school. As noted above, the school was taken over temporarily only for a period of little more than two years and had thereafter reverted back as a recognized private non-Governmental Sanskrit school in which the Government had a limited commitment of making payment of salary and emoluments to the teaching and non-teaching employees. It was thus for the management of the school to have provided building and infra-structure. 15. This Court, however, does not find anything of this nature either in 1956 resolution or by any other order where the Government had given notice and opportunity to the management of the school to restore its building failing which it would stand de-recognized. Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the school has its own land and in fact on such land the old building is in dilapidated condition and it is on account of lack of resources that the building has not been completed as yet. He however is of the view that though such building is sufficient enough for running of the school but a new building would be constructed in near future and therefore, recognition of the school can be conditionally restored. 16. This Court would find that the reasons given by the State Government for holding the school not at all to be in existence are not supported by any specific evidence. If the lack of building is the only reason for coming to such a conclusion, the Government or the Board can obtain an undertaking for restoring the building as was also envisaged in the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956, relevant portion whereof is once again reproduced for better appreciation of this aspect:- “(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;” 17. Thus, the Government resolution dated 11.8.1956 under which this school had received recognition on 10.10.1956 itself provides a mechanism of obtaining guarantee/ undertaking for the school building and therefore, de-recognition of the school without giving such an opportunity to the petitioner school to fulfil condition of building also cannot be justified. 18. In fact the authorities of the Board and the Government had also not considered this crucial aspect that if the school was not at all functional as is now sought to be suggested by the Government in the impugned order dated 5.3.2012, how could the regular students of this school be allowed to appear in Madhyama Examination year after year?. It is on record that between 2005 to 2008 i.e. during the period first order of de-recognition was passed and had remained stayed under the interim order of this Court the school had been sending regularly its students for appearing in Madhyama Examination. 15 students in 2005, 7 students in 2006, 87 students in 2007, 44 students in 2008, 10 students in 2009, 6 students in 2010 and 6 students in 2011 regular students are said to have appeared in the examination conducted by the Board. Such figure would, therefore, give credence to the case of the petitioner school that it has remained functional not only on paper but even otherwise. A High School in order to remain functional can be tested on the basis of number of regular students appearing in the examination and since the Board had accepted fees and forms of the regular students even from this school, apart from making the school also a centre for holding of the examination for the students of other Sanskrit schools, it cannot be said that the school has not remained functional. The three men Committee also did not hold the school to be non-functional and in fact having visited the school after the school hours it had only recommended for re-inspection. 19. Considering all these aspects the impugned order as with regard to the petitioner of its remaining de-recognized on the ground of not being in existence in the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the State Government is also hereby quashed. 20. 19. Considering all these aspects the impugned order as with regard to the petitioner of its remaining de-recognized on the ground of not being in existence in the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the State Government is also hereby quashed. 20. This Court, however, would immediately clarify that quashing of both the impugned orders will not inure to the benefit of the teachers of the school receiving payment of salary unless a satisfactory report of its being functional is placed before the Board and the State Government. This Court would accordingly direct the Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to constitute a Committee headed by himself and also comprising of the District Education Officer, Madhubani and a Government nominee Officer in the rank of District Education Officer to re-inspect the school in question and examine all the records as also the physical condition of the school and submit its report to the Board. If the Committee finds that there is a school building good enough for functioning of the school and the record of the school also suggests that the regular students have been appearing in Madhyama Examination conducted by the Board, it would place the same before the State Government for the benefit of recognition and release of payment of salary. If, on the other hand, the Board and/or the Government is still of the view that the recognition of the school petitioner cannot be continued, it will have to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner school in terms of Rule 6 of 1993 Rules as explained in the judgment of Saraswati Bhawan (supra) and take its decision in accordance with law. This exercise must be completed in the case of the petitioner school within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 21. It goes without saying that if there is a favourable report of the three men Committee as with regard to the school being remained functional and consequently its recognition is restored, its approved teaching and non-teaching staff under the specific orders of the Board shall be also entitled to get their arrears and current salary w.e.f. 15.6.2002. 22. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.