The Board had the power to withdraw its approval of the petitioners' appointments, but only after giving them an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

S. B. Sinba, J.

1. This writ application is directed against the orders, dated 23-3-1983 as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 and a copy of the order, dated 28-4-1984, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioners were allegedly appointed as teachers in Harish Chandra jha Uchch Vidyalaya by the Managing Committee thereof. According to the petitioners, their appointments were also approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha board in terms of provisions of Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981. The petitioners have asserted in the writ application the petitioner No.1 was the founder of the said School. The petitioners were further asserted that both of them have the requisite qualifications to be appointed in the post of teachers in the said School. It appears that several complaints were made with regard to the appointment of the petitioners and the Board purported to have appointed one Diwakar Shashtri to enquire into the matter and allegedly in terms of the report submitted by aforesaid Sri Shastri, the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled by the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application. The petitioners have asserted that before passing the said orders, they filed a writ application in this Court which was registered as c. W. J. C. No.3899/82, but as during the pendency of the said writ application the aforementioned orders, as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application were passed, they were directed to prefer appeals before the Special Director in terms of provision of Sec.24 of the Act. The petitioners have stated that pursuant to the said order they preferred appeals, but by order, dated 28-4-1984, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same barred by limitation and further on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the requisite fee therefor.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have raised two submissions, firstly the learned counsel contended in terms of the provision, contained in Sec.11 (2) of the Act, the Board had no power to take disciplinary action against the teachers. Learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter as before passing the said order, the petitioners were not heard by the Board, there has been a violation of the rules of natural justice and in that view of the matter, the impugned orders as contained in annexures-7 and 8 to the writ application are vitiated in law. Mr. Dinesh charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No.4, submit that although the order as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 of the writ application, it had been mentioned that the appointments of the petitioners are being cancelled but in effect and substance the same must be held to be an order of termination of service passed by the Board. Learned counsel further pointed out that an enquiry was made by Shri Divvakar Shastri and the petitioners had ample opportunity to prove their innocence and in any view of the matter there has been substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is admitted by the parties that the school in question is non-Government School. It also stands admitted that the Slate of Bihar has not yet issued any notification in terms of Sec.20 of the Act. In this view of the matter the teachers of the privately managed School have not become the employees of the Board in terms thereof. However, it is admitted that the School in question was recognised by the Board and in this view of the matter the Board had jurisdiction to grant approval of appointment of the teacher of a recognised School. Sec.11 (2)empowers the Chairman of the Board to appoint any employee of the Board on the post sanctioned but the Chairman does not have any power to appoint any teachers and other officers o