JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. - Three writ petition were filed by (i) Dr. Radha Krishna Poddar (ii) Shri Ambika Prasad and (iii) Dr. Rash Lal Yadav challenging their removal from the Chairmanship of the Bihar School Service Board constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking-over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, hereinafter called the Act. These three petitions which were heard by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court came to be dismissed by a common judgment rendered on 24-3-1992. The petitioners of the first two petitions have not preferred any appeal against the said judgment but the petitioner of the third petition Dr. Rash Lal Yadav has preferred the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the petitioner of the first two writ petitions. We will, therefore, confine ourselves to the factual position relevant to this appeal filed by Dr. Rash Lal Yadav, hereinafter called the appellant. The appellant was the Head of the Department in Maithili in Kunwar Singh College, Lakhisarai, before the selection and appointment as Chairman of the Bihar School Service Board, hereinafter called the Board, for a term of three years from the date he assumed charge of his office, vide notification dated 8-11-1990. Prior to his appointment this office was occupied by the other two petitioners Dr. Rash Krishna Poddar and Shri Ambika Prasad Pandey. Both of them had been removed from the Chairmanship of the Board on account of several charges of mismanagement which were the subject-matter of vigilance inquires. However, after the appellant took over as the Chairman of the Board, he too took certain actions the propriety whereof came to be questioned. Notwithstanding the difficult financial condition of the Board, he, it was alleged, decided to shift the Boards office to another premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000 as against Rs. 8000 paid for the premises where the Boards office was earlier situate. It was also alleged that he withdrew Rs. 1 lakh and paid the same by way of advance for furnishing the new office. Complaints were also received by the Government from a large number of candidates that the interviews conducted by the appellant were a farce, inasmuch as almost 150 candidates were interviewed on each day rendering the entire process an empty formality. It was alleged that some of the experts who participated in the interviews complained to the Government that they were not permitted by the Chairman to question the candidates. Only formal questions were put to the candidate and they were hurriedly despatched. They made several complaints regarding the abrasive manner in which the Chairman behaved with the other Board Members as well as the candidates. They complained that apart from the fact that his behaviour was not proper he was not more interested in finding out the caste or community to which the candidate belonged rather than assessing the merit for appointment. Smt. Saroj Bala Sinha one of the members even complained that the appellant did not have any discussion with the members of the Board regarding the procedure to be followed at the interviews nor did he consult the Members in the matter of selection of candidates. Even the signatures of the Members of the Board were not obtained on the final list prepared by the Board. Another Member of the Board Dr. P. Lakha by this letter dated 23-3-1991 reported the Government that the appellant wanted him to sign certain papers relating the decisions taken by the Board prior to his joining. This, according to him, caused him avoidable embarrassment. Since 30 marks out of 100 were reserved for personal interview, the marks assigned at the interview were of considerable significance as they could make or mar the future of a candidate. The Government having received these complaints and having known the manner in which the interviews were conducted and the behaviour of the