Judgment:
Narbdeshwar Pandey, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a Writ of certiorari, quashing the order, contained in Memo No, 314 dated 15.4.1989 (Annexure-1), whereby, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 2) rejected the appeal, which was preferred against the order of the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, as contained in Memo No. 6699 dated 2.7.1987 (Annexure-4)
2. As would appear from the facts on record, there is a dispute between two Managing Committees of the School, named Sri Chandra Mishra Prathmik-sah-Madhyama Sanskrit Vidyalaya. The petitioner Managing Committee is being represented by the Secretary Sri Chandra Mishra, whereas the other Managing Committee is represented by Sri Baiju Kant Jha (Chairman) and Baleshwar Jha (Secretary). The School in question was established by the villagers in the year, 1978 in a building offered by Sri Chandra Mishra, who was also nominated as Secretary of the Managing Committee, while Sri Baiju Kant Jha as Chairman.
3. The said Managing Committee vide resolution dated 31.12.1979 appointed petitioner No. 2 Subodh Jha as Assistant Teacher of the School. Later as would appear from Annexure-5, in a meeting of the members of the Committee held on 8.1.1984, it was decided since the previous Committee which was constituted as back as on 17.12.1978 had already competed a term of five years, therefore, the said Committee was dissolved in order to constitute a fresh committee. But, Sri Chandra Mishra was not inducted in that meeting as Secretary.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the above mentioned resolution of the Members of the Committee, Sri Chandra Mishra filed an application before the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Both the committees, one led by Sri Chandra Mishra and the other by Baiju Kant Jha and Baleshwar Jha placed their respective claims regarding validity of the committee. Ultimately, the Chairman of the Board by order dated 2.9.1987, as contained in Annexure-4, held that the Managing Committee led by Baiju Kant Jha and Baleshwar Jha was legally constituted. Since Sri Chandra Mishra had failed to fulfil his commitment to donate land and building to the School nor he was present in the meeting of the Committee held on. 8.5.84, he was not entitled to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee.
5. With respect to the decision of the new Managing Committee to remove Subodh Jha (petitioner No. 2) from service, the Chairman held that such a decision was without calling for any explanation from the teacher concerned, Therefore, he directed the Managing Committee to take a fresh decision after holding inquiry and granting an opportunity to show-cause to petitioner No. 2 and further held that until a fresh decision is taken by the Managing Committee in this regard, the post held by Subodh Jha shall be treated vacant. Though an appeal was preferred before the Special Secretary against the above-mentioned order, but the same was also rejected upholding the decision of the Chairman.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as would appear from Sections 6 and 11 of the Act, the Chairman of the Board has no jurisdiction nor delegated by the Board under the provisions of this Act to constitute or dissolve any Managing Committee or to disapprove appointment of a teacher of such a School. The exclusive power in this regard is vested with the Board under the provisions of Section 6. Therefore, if there was any dispute regarding the Constitution of the Managing Committee or Committees or appointment of a teacher, it is the Board which had the full jurisdiction under Section 6 Clause (u). subject to any Rule made under the Act. As no Rule has yet been framed contrary to such a provisions, only the Board can exercise the power. In support of the contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court, in the case of Gurudeo Gupta And Ors. v. The state of Bihar And Ors. 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. 427 and another decision in the same volume at page 520 in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur, etc. v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and ors.
7. Although learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents could not dispute that it was the Board alone which had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding validity of the Managing Committee or the appointment of an Assistant Teacher, but contended that Writ petitioners having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Chairman and participating at the proceeding and also having lost the appeal before the Special Director, cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the jurisdiction of the authority after getting the adverse order. In support of his contention learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Badra Alam and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1995 (1) P.L.J.R. Therefore at this stage it would not be in the interest, of justice to set aside the impugned orders on the ground of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners.
8. True, it is the petitioners had participated at the proceeding before the Chairman who ultimately decided ihe case by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, but such a participation of the petitioners in the proceeding, in my view, cannot confer jurisdiction to the Chairman to dissolve the dispute, which would be possible only by the Board. In this regard a reference can be usefully made to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal and Ors. v. The Charge Officer 1974 B.B.C.J. 458. A bare reference to the above decision would show that if a Court or an authority has got no jurisdiction in law to entertain a particular dispute and erroneously proceeds to determine the rights of the parties, no ground of consent or acquiescence of the parties will create the jurisdiction in the said Court or authority. In other words, the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the authority will not in any way be cured by the action of the parties. Similar was the views expressed in the case of Raghuraj Pressed Singh v. Basudco Singh and Ors. : AIR1950Pat318 .
9. There is no doubt that the petitioners should have taken such stand earlier before coming to this Court, but in view of the utter lack of jurisdiction of the authorities, noticed above, it appears difficult to sustain the impugned order.
10. I, therefore, having regard to the facts noticed above and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the Constitution of the Managing Committee well as the appointment of petitioner No. 2, set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to decide the entire dispute afresh.
11. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the order of the Chairman was passed as back as in the year, 1987 and the same was also continued by the Special Director, we direct that, until further decision of the Board, status quo as obtaining today with respect to the affairs of the School as well as appointment of petitioner No. 2 will be maintained.
12. In the result, subject to the directions made above, this Writ application succeeds. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
13. I agree.