PER PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.)In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order, as contained in letter dated 31.03.2009, vide Annexure -9 to the writ petition pertaining to dismissal from services, as Assistant Teacher in Shyama Prasad High School, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur -2, on the basis of charges levelled against her by chargesheet dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure -3), based on the Complaint Petition dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure -3/1) signed by the 13 staff members of the said High School addressed to the Head Master (Respondent No. 6).
(2.)Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was a Assistant Teacher in Shyama Prasad High School, Khas Mahal, Jamshedpur -2 and the School in question is a Linguistic (Bengali) Minority High School declared as such by the Bihar Secondary Education Board, Patna vide Letter dated 31.07.2007 and the said School being declared as Minority School, is governed by Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Earlier, the service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 05.05.2004 and the petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of termination in W.P. (S) No. 2726 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2006 and the order of termination of the petitioner was quashed and she was re -instated in her service with 50 per cent back wages and liberty was given to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding, if they so desired, as evident from Annexure -1 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the order of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service, and since the arrears of salary was not paid, the petitioner filed a contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 527 of 2007. It has been averred that after receipt of the contempt notice, the Head Master of the School in question, became vindictive and on the basis of the alleged complaint filed by 13 staff members of the School, the Head Master issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.2008 and 03.10.2008. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner has sought for the copy of the complaint Petition, as evident from Annexure -2 series. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6, the Head Master of the School after receipt of the show cause reply requested respondent no. 5 to take action against the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent no. 5 has issued Charge -sheet dated 18.11.2008, based on the complaint petition dated 26.09.2008 to the petitioner, annexing the copy of the complaint petition dated 26.09.2008, as per Annexure -3 series. On receipt of the charge, the petitioner submitted her explanation vide letter dated 21.11.2008 and 24.11.2008 before the respondent no. 5. Being dissatisfied with the show cause replies, the respondent no. 5 issued letter dated 03.01.2009, directing the Enquiry Officer to conduct a Domestic Enquiry in respect of the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and concluded the enquiry in a hot haste and the Enquiry Officer opined that the charges against the petitioner have been proved beyond all doubts and the petitioner has been guilty of the said charges. It is also averred in the writ application that the request of the petitioner to engage an Advocate was not acceded by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report was based on complain of 27 staffs, whereas, the Charge Sheet was based on the complain of 13 persons and the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 20.02.2009, was supplied to the petitioner to afford her opportunity to make representation. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the Enquiry Report dismissed the petitioner from services vide order dated 31.03.2009, issued by the Secretary Shyama Prasad High School, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur -2, as contained in the said letter vide Annexure -9 to the writ petition.
During pendency of the writ petition, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been submitted that in the meeting held on 30.03.2009, the Managing Committee of the Shyama Prasad High School, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur -2 unanimously decided to dismiss the petitioner from her services. Accordingly, the petitioner has been dismissed with effect from 31.03.2009 by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Shyama Prasad High School, Khas Mahal, Jamshedpur -2 and the proceeding of the meeting of the Managing Committee has been annexed as Annexure -10. The Secretary of the School vide letter dated 20.11.2013 furnished information to the Dist. Education Officer cum Public Information Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur regarding appointment of the members of the Managing Committee of the Shyama Prasad High School, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur -2, who participated in the meeting dated 30.03.2009, as per Annexure -11 to the supplementary affidavit and on perusal of Annexure -11, it shows that the date of appointment of 7 members, who participated in the Managing Committee's meeting held on 30.03.2009 is 22.12.2004 and on the date of appointment of two other members, who participated in the meeting on 30.03.2009, is April, 2006 and it has been submitted that the legality and validity of appointment of the aforesaid two members appears to be concocted and fabricated and it has been contended also that the letter dated 24.09.2014, issued by the Respondent No. 5 shows that no new member has been elected/nominated between 2004 and 2009 and the Managing Committee's decision dated 30.03.2009 cannot be a legal and valid one.

(3.)Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, wherein, it has been submitted that the order of termination has not got the approval from the Vidyalaya Seva Board. The service condition of the minority schools teaching and non -teaching staffs have been dealt with by the management of the concerned school but the cause of action as per the prescribed law must be approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board which has not been done by the school committee, as such, the said order of termination is not maintainable in law.