A Board of Secondary Education has the authority to direct a District Education Officer to pay the salary of a teacher who has been reinstated after being wrongfully dismissed.

S. Ali Ahmad, J.

1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to implement the orders contained in Annexures 4 and 8 annexure 4 is an order passed by the Chairman of the Board of Secondary education (respondent no.1) and communicated by the Secretary (respondent no.2) to respondent no.3. By this annexure respondent no.3 was directed to make payment to the petitioner towards his arrears of salary from 6th July, 1967 to April 1976 excluding the period from 19th April, 1975 to 11th of December 1975. It was also directed by this order contained in this annexure that payment should be made within 10 days and a compliance report should be submitted to the Board. Further direction was also given to respondent no.3 by this order that he should make enquiry as to whether the petitioner had received any salary or allowance from the High School at Netol for the period beginning from the 19th April, 1975 to 11th December, 1975. Since the order contained in annexure 4 was not complied with, a reminder was issued by the Secretary of the board, respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 asking him to make payment for undisputed period and to report compliance. It was also said in this letter that for the remaining period respondent no.3 should inform the Board if there was any difficulty in making the payment.

2. Although it is not necessary to state the facts in any detail but just to illustrate that facts some times are stranger than fiction I am tempted to mention some of them.

3. The petitioner was a Head Master of Behrampur High School in the year 1958 when he was selected for the Commonwealth Teachers Training Bursery award for specialised training in United Kingdom under the Commonwealth educational Co-operaticn Scheme. After taking the approval of the managing committee of the school for the purpose he left for England sometime in 1956. After completion of the training in England he returned home and wanted to join the school on 6.7.1967 when he was told that his services had been dispensed with. After some correspondence the petitioner filed an appeal before the president of the Board of Secondary Education under 1955 rules. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The erstwhile members of the managing committee took the matter to the education commissioner. The education commissioner who evidently had no saying in the matter set aside the order of reinstatement passed by the President of the Board of secondary Education. The petitioner thereafter moved this court against the order passed by the education commissioner. The members of the managing commitee also realising that the order they had obtained from the education commissioner was without jurisdiction came to this court in another writ application challenging the order passed in appeal by the President, Board of secondary Eduration. The two applications were heard together. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order of the education commissioner was quashed. The application filed on behalf of the members of the managing committee was allowed to be withdrawn as dismissed. The petitioner thereafter thought that he had won the battle but he was wrong. In spite of this the Board could not succeed in getting the petitioner reinstated. This necessitated filing of another application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to get the order of reinstatement passed by the Chairman of the board of Secondary education implemented. This application was also allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus was issued directing the Board to implement this order by reinstating the petitioner. Since the writ issued by this court was not implemented a petition for taking action for contempt filed against respondents 1, 2, 3 and others. The contemptors appeared