N.Pandey, J.

1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order, contained in memo No. 314 dated 15.4.1989 (Annexure-1), whereby, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar (respondent no. 2) rejected the appeal, which was preferred against the order of the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, as contained in Memo No. 6699 dated 2.7.1987 (Annexure-4).

2. As would appear from the facts on record, there is a dispute between two Managing Committees of the School, named Sri Chandra Mishra Prathmiksah Madhyama Sanakrit Vidyalaya. The petitioner Managing Committee is being represented by the Secretary Sri Chandra Mishra, where as the other Managing Committee is represented by Sri Baiju Kant Jha (Chairman) and Baleshwar Jha (Secretary). The School in question was established by the villagers in the years, 1978 in a building offered by Sri Chandra Mishra, who was also nominated as Secretary of the Managing Committee, while Sri Baiju Kant Jha as Chairman.

3. The said Managing Committee vide resolution dt. 31.12.1979 appointed petitioner no. 2 Subodh Jha as Assistant Teacher of the School. Later as would appear from Annexure-5 in a meeting of the members of the Committee held on 8.1.1984, it was decided since the previous committee which was constituted as back as on 17.12.1978 had already completed a term of five years, therefore, the said Committee was dissolved in order to constitute a fresh committee. But Sri Chandra Mishra was not inducted in that meeting as Secretary.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the abovementioned resolution of the Members of the Committee, Sri Chandra Mishra filed an application before the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Both the committees, one led by Sri Chandra Mishra and the other by Baiju Kant Jha and Baleshwar Jha placed their respective claims regarding validity of the committee. Ultimately the Chairman of the Board by order dated 2.9.1987, as contained in Annexure-4, held that the Managing Committee led by Baiju Kant Jha and Baleshwar Jha was legally constituted. Since Sri Chandra Mishra had failed to fulfil his commitment to donate land and building to the School nor he was present in the meeting of the committee held on 8.5.84, he was not entitled to be the secretary of the Managing Committee.

5. With respect to the decision of the new Managing Committee to remove Subodh Jha (Petitioner no.2) from service, the Chairman held that such a decision was without calling for any explanation from the concerned teacher. Therefore, he directed the Managing Committee to take a fresh decision after holding enquiry and granting an opportunity to show cause to petitioner no.2 and further held that until a fresh decision is taken by the Managing Committee in this regard, the post held by Subodh Jha shall be treated vacant. Though an appeal was preferred before the Special Secretary against the abovementioned order, but the same was also rejected upholding the decision of the Chairman.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as would appear from Sections 6 and 11 of the Act, the Chairman of the Board has no jurisdiction nor delegated by the Board under the provisions of this Act to constitute or dissolve any Managing Committee or to disapprove appointment of a teacher of such a school. The exclusive power in this regard is vested with the Board under the provisions of Section 6. Therefore, if there was any dispute regarding the constitution of the Managing Committee or committees or appointment of a teacher, it is the Board which had the full jurisdiction under Section 6 Cl.(u) [sic(n)?], subject to any Rule made under the Act. As no Rule has yet been framed contrary to such a provisions, only the Board can exercise the power. In support of the contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Gurudeo Gupta & ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors., 1999(1) P.LJ.R