LAWS(PAT)-2011-5-157

GOVIND NATH JHA Vs. BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD

Decided On May 20, 2011
GOVIND NATH JHA Appellant
V/S
BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Acharya on 2.11.1987 in Deodhira Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Deep, District Madhubani. Having been so appointed, the matter was referred to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for approval of his services. The Sanskrit Shiksha Board ultimately, vide Annexure-2 under Order No. 883 dated 1.6.1990, approved the senrvice of the petitioner from the date he joined which would be 2.11.1987. This School was one of the 429 Sanskrit Schools that were then taken over by the State Government under Ordinance which was promulgated on 16.12.1989 which series of Ordinances were then allowed to lapse on 30.4.1992. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment was on a duly sanctioned post.

(2.) It appears that subsequently, the State Government got an inspection done of the School by the district authorities and on 15.6.2002, the recognition granted to the petitioner's School was withdrawn. Petitioner's prayer is that petitioner was duly appointed on a sanctioned vacant post on 2.11.1987 and his appointment having been approved by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, he was entitled to payment of his full remuneration from the date of appointment upto the date of derecognition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed, a copy whereof was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner long back in which the stand of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board is that in 1990, Sanskrit Shiksha Board lost the powers to grant approval of the services as by then the Ordinance had come. It may be mentioned here that in between, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court had directed Sanskrit Shiksha Board to reconsider the matter pursuant thereby Annexure-6 has been passed and communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 3492 dated 13.9.2005 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the same ground, as taken in the counter affidavit and in the said order, noticing that some payment was made, order for recovery has also been made.