Aftab Alam, J.

1. -a privately established Sanskrit School had due recognition granted by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board under the provisions of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1991. The school in question was taken over and vested in the State of Bihar with effect from 18-12-1989 on coming into force of the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Ordinance 1989. The consequence of vesting was that the school was taken out of the purview of the Board Act and none of the provisions of this Act remained applicable to this school any longer. However on 18-12-1989, the date of take over, an appeal on a dispute relating to the post of Headmaster of the school was pending before the Special Director (Secondary Education), Bihar (respondent No.2) who was the officer appointed by the State Government to hear and dispose of the appeal preferred under Sec.24 of the Board Act. What would be the fate of this appeal This is the short question that falls for consideration in this writ application. The question assumes importance as in the Take over act there is neither a saving clause nor any provision dealing with the appeals pending under Sec.24 of the board Act.

2. To put the point in its factual context it is to be state that petitioner no.2 and respondent No.7 lay claim to the post of Headmaster of Josni devi Primary-cum-Middle Sanskrit School, Saharsa (the school for short ). The school is said to have been established in 1977 and was granted recognition by the Board under the Board Act on 25-3-1980 One Daya Nand mishra who had also joined in this application as petitioner No.1 claimed to be the founder Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School. Petitioner no.2 is said to have been appointed by the Managing Committee as an Assistant teacher on 21-2-1977 ; he joined the school on 27-2-1977.

3. There appears to have arisen, some time in 1983, a dispute between daya Nand Milhra and one Din Bandhu Jha. When both of them claimed to be the lawful General Secretary of the Managing Committee. The fall out of this was another (subsidiary) dispute relating to the post of Headmaster of the school.

4. In this regard the case of the petitioner No.2 is that the post of headmaster fell vacant as the original incumbent to the post went away to some other High School, To fill up the vacancy the Managing Committee on 13-5-1983 directed petitioner No.2 who was the senior most teacher to officiate as Headmaster of the school. Later on, the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 15-12-1983 decided to promote the petitioner as Headmaster of the school on a regular basis. The references to the Managing committee here are, of course, to the one having Daya Nand Mishra (petitioner No.1) as its Secretary. According to petitioner No.2, the claim of respondent No.7 was based on some fake documents manufactured by respondent No.5 behind the back of petitioner No.1, and by taiing in collusion some members of the Managing Committee and the authorities of the board.

5. The case of respondent No.7 is simply the converse of the above. According to him respondent No.5 was made the Secretary of the Managing committee after the removal of petitioner No.2 in March, 1983. On 14-5-1983 the Managing Committee (with respondent No.5 as its Secretary made respondent No.7, the Incharge Headmaster of the School. Finally the proper Managing Committee in a validly held meeting on 5-1-1984 decided to promote respondent No.7 on a regular basis as Headmaster of the school. Respondent No.7 in his turn describes the documents relied upon by petitioner no.2 and the meetings of the Managing Committee referred to by him as fake, collusive and invalid.

6. At the material time the school being within the ambit of the Board act the disputes went upto the Board. (These disputes also formed the subject-matter of T. S. No.19/1984 filed by petitioner No.1 in the Court of subordinate Judge, Saharsa. It is not necessary, however, to