S.N. Hussain, J.
1. I.A. No. 5753 of 2006 has been filed by Mr. Zahoor Ahmad claiming to be the Secretary of the newly constituted Mahaging Committee of the Madarsa in question. In the said circumstances, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let Mr. Zahoor Ahmed, the alleged Secretary of the newly constituted Managing Committee of Madarsa Darus Salam, Sikta, West Champaran be added as respondent No. 6 in this writ petition.
2. At the insistence of all the parties this writ petition is finally heard and decided at this stage itself. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar (appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2), learned Counsel for the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna (appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4), Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5, namely Mr. Nisar Ahmad, and learned Counsel for the newly added intervenor respondent.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.04.2006 (Annexure-5) by which the appellate authority, namely the Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, (respondent No. 2) disposed of Misc. Appeal No. 05 of 2006 setting aside the order dated 19.9.2005 (annexure-3) by which temporary approval was given to a committee of Madarsa Darus salam Sikta (West Champaran) (hereinafter referred to as 'Madarsa' for the sake of brevity) of which the petitioner is the Secretary.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Madarsa in question is one of the oldest Madarsas in Bihar and is affiliated to Bihar State Madarsa Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' for the sake of brevity) as Madarsa No. 78. He further submits that the earlier committee of Madarsa was dissolved as the Secretary of the said Madarsa, namely Mr. Nisar Ahmad (respondent No. 5) had resigned, whereafter on 6.2.2004, a general meeting of local people was held which selected a new Managing Committee of which the petitioner was the Secretary. Thereafter at the instance of the Board, an inquiry was held by one Dr. Abdul Ghani who submitted his report dated 20.6.2005 finding that the said committee was legally constituted, whereafter on 19.9.2005 (annexure-3) temporary approval was given to the said committee by the. Secretary of the Board awaiting the approval of the Board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 14.12.2005 the Committee of the Board approved the said Managing Committee, whereafter on 18.12.2005 the Board gave its approval to the petitioner's committee.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also avers that all of a sudden on 08.02.2006, (annexure-4), the Chairman of the Board withdrew the temporary approval dated 19.9.2005 given to the petitioner's committee without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving any reason for passing such an order in such a hurry and without appreciating the order of the Board dated 18.12.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite his best efforts a copy of order of approval of the Board dated 18.12.2005 was not provided to him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also states that in the said circumstances, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 08.02.2006 vide Appeal No. 05 of 2006 before the Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar (respondent No. 2), but the appellate authority without properly appreciating the points raised by the petitioner and the provisions of law set aside even the earlier order dated 19.09.2005 along with the order of the Chairman dated 08.02.2006 without making any reference to the order of the Board dated 18.12.2005.
6. Learned Counsel for the State, who is also appearing for the appellate authority, supports the impugned appellate order, whereas learned Counsel for the Board submits that the Board has taken steps and passed order in accordance with law and when an illegality was committed by the Secretary of the Board by passing the order dated 19.9.2005 (annexure-3), the same was withdrawn by he Chairman of the Board on 08.02.2006 (annexure-4) appointing respondent No. 5 for six months only to look after the affairs of the Committee so that a new Managing Committee be constituted in accordance with law whereafter a new Managing Committee has already been constituted, with the newly added intervenor-respondent No. 6 as its Secretary.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 also vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's committee was not a legally or validly constituted committee as it was not elected by the people of the locality, nor even the subsequent report submitted by the enquiry Officer was legal or justified as no on-the-spot inquiry was held. He further submits that the President of the petitioner's committee is already dead, whereas one of the members is an accused in a criminal case with respect to sale of illicit liquor. He also avers that two members of the said Managing Committee had filed affidavit before the appellate authority that neither the petitioner's Committee was selected by the general people of the locality, nor any on-the-spot inquiry was held and affidavit to that effect was also filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Madarsa (Annexures- A, B and C of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5). He further submits that the appellate order is merely an order of remand to the Board for removing the infirmities which had been committed in the grant of temporary approval to the petitioner's Committee. Hence, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the appellate authority as earlier no approval was given by the Board and this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
8. The newly added respondent also argued in the lines similar to the other respondents and in addition to that he stated that in compliance of the order of the appellate authority, a meeting had been held of the general people of the locality on 29.11.2006 in which the Managing Committee was selected and was finally formed on 02.12.2006 in which the intervenor (respondent No. 6) is the Secretary, whereafter the matter was sent to the Board for approval which is still pending. He further submits that to end the illegalities and confusion created by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Board, the appellate authority rightly passed the impugned order in presence of all the persons concerned including the members of the two previous Committees and only thereafter the Committee of respondent No. 6 was selected. Hence, he submits that the impugned order of the appellate authority is legal and justified and has been fully followed and finally a Managing Committee has been legally formed which does not require any interference.
9. It may be relevant to mention here that respondent No. 5 was admittedly the Secretary of the Committee of the Madarsa prior to 2004 whereafter he resigned and a new Committee was formed. Furthermore, he was subsequently appointed temporarily by order dated 08.02.2006 for six months merely to facilitate selection of a new Committee, hence the period of six months having lapsed and a new committee having already selected, respondent No. 5 has no right or interest left in the matter and has no locus to raise any claim in this matter whatsoever. So far respondent No. 6 is concerned, his managing committee even according to respondents has been formed on the directions contained in the impugned orders of the Chairman and the Board dated 08.02.2006 and 29.04.2006 (annexures 4 and 5), hence its fate lies with the result of this case and if the said impugned orders are quashed, the said Committee goes, specially when it has not even been approved by the Board as yet.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments raised by the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the Board vide order dated 22.3.2005 (annexure-1) directed the enquiry officer to hold an inquiry with respect to the claim of some people that a general body meeting of the local people was held on 06.02.2004 in which the petitioner's Committee was selected. It is also not in dispute that temporary approval was given to the said Committee on 19.09.2005 (annexure-3) when a report was received in the: Board from the said enquiry officer finding that the petitioner's Committee was selected by the local people in a general meeting. Although the petitioner claims that the Committee of the Board approved the petitioner's Committee on 14.12.2005, whereafter the Board also gave its approval to the petitioner's Committee on 18.12.2005, but the same is countered only in their arguments by the learned Counsel for the private respondents. However the statement with respect to that made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition, has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the Board, hence it remains uncontroverted on records by the authority, which is said to have passed that order of approval.
11. It is also clear from the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 08.02.2006 (annexure-4) that Board's approval dated 18.12.2005 was not even considered and only the temporary approval dated 19.09.2005 was withdrawn and even that was done without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's Committee which was definitely going to be affected by that order. Furthermore, no reason has been assigned for passing the said order by the Chairman of the Board. It is to be noted here that the affidavit and the statement with respect to the criminal cases filed at the appellate stage were contested by the petitioner, whereas there is no mention that the same was available with the Chairman of the Board at the time of passing of his order. Hence the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 08.02.2006 is clearly baseless and illegal apart from being violative of principles of equity and justice.
12. Furthermore the temporary approval dated 19.9.2005 (annexure-3) was given awaiting the final approval of the Board, hence affirming the said temporary approval or rejecting the same could have been done only by the Board as is also the requirement of law as per the provisions of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act, hence, there was no justification for the Chairman of the Board to pass such an order (annexure-4) himself either withdrawing temporary approval or appointing respondent No. 5 for six months or even giving directions for constitution of a fresh Managing Committee.
13. So far the order of the appellate authority dated 29.04.2006 (annexure-5) is concerned, it has found order dated 08.02.2006 (annexure-4) to be illegal and has set it aside, but even then it indirectly allowed part of that order by setting aside the order of temporary approval given to the petitioner's Committee dated 19.9.2005 (annexure-3) committing the same mistake of non-consideration of the subsequent order of the Board dated 18.12.2005. Furthermore, merely on the basis of assertions made by interested persons the appellate authority has assumed that no general meeting of local people was held on 06.02.2004 and that no on-the-spot inquiry was earlier held by the person appointed by the Board.
14. In this regard, it may be noted that no fresh inquiry in the said matter was directed by the appellate authority in view of its rejection of the earlier enquiry and it passed its order merely on the basis of some affidavit which required a detailed inquiry specially when the appellant contested the same and no such allegation was earlier levelled before the Board or its Chairman by any one as is apparent from the order of the Chairman dated 08.02.2006 itself. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to set aside the order of temporary approval dated 19.9.2005, which according to the petitioner was approved by the Board on 18.12.2005 and regarding which no reference at all has been made by the appellate authority in the impugned order.
15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugn id order of the appellate authority dated 29.04.2006 (annexure-5) as well as the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 08.02.2006 (annexure-4) are hereby quashed and the petitioner's committee is directed to continue and be treated as the legally constituted committee of the Madarsa in accordance with law. However, if the Board receives any complaint against the petitioner's Committee or its formation, the Board may consider the same afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of placing their case to all the parties concerned within a period of two months from the date of receiving such complain, if filed.
16. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is allowed.