The Board has the jurisdiction to approve the list of teachers while granting funds for payment of salary, and the petitioners were given proper opportunity to explain the allegations of interpolation/change of records.

N. Pandey. J.- In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the ORDER :of the Special Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education, Bihar, dated 22.11.1988, contained in Annexure 1 as also the ORDER :of the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') dated 8.2.1988 contained in Annexure 5 and that of the Board, dated 11.2.1988, contained in Annexure 8, whereby the claim of respondent nos. 6 and 2, except respondent no. 9 to be the genuine teachers of the Sahu Sanskrit PrathmikSah-Madhya Vidyalaya, Karaihya, Saharsa, has been allowed.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were duly appointed as assistant teachers by the Managing Committee of the School on different dates in the year 1984 and duly recognised by the competent authority. The State of Bihar vide its resolution dated 23.3.1995 resolved to grant recognition to the various schools by the Board. Ultimately after proper verification and scrutiny of different materials, the school in question was recognised in the category of Prathma sah-Madhyama. Thereafter, the Managing Committee resolved to send the names of assistant teachers and other employees of the school before the Board for grant of necessary fund for payment of salary. Accordingly, in compliance of the aforesaid resolution, the Secretary of the school, sent the names of the petitioners for approval. But before the approval of the Board could be granted, respondent nos. 6 to 9 tiled objection before respondent lio.3 alleging that the Secretary of the school instead of sending the names of genuine teachers (respondent nos. 6 to 9), had sent the names of the petitioners, who were not validly appointed in the school. Allegations of tampering of relevant records were also made. It was also alleged that the Secretary in ORDER :to defeat the claim of respondent nos. 6 to 9 had manufactured several documents.

3. It would appear from ti;'3 ORDER :of the Chairman that on receipt of the objection of respondent nos.6 to 9 he issued notices to the Principal and the Secretary of the school calling upon to show cause why the claim of respondent nos. 6 to 9 be not accepted. Ultimately, the Chairman after hearing the relevant parties, held that respondent nos.6 to 9 were the genuine teachers of the school and the list submitted by the Secretary was not genuine. Though the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid ORDER :but an appeal was preferred by the Secretary of the school before the Special Director under section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Education Board Act, 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which was ultmately dismissed by the ORDER :contained in Annexure 1 affirming the ORDER :of the Chairman.

4. Learned counsel contended that from a bare reference to the facts brought on record it would appear that the petitioners were appointed in the school much before the appointment of respondent nos.6 to 9 and their services were also recognised' by the appropriate authority. The seniority list prepared by the Managing Committee contained in Annexure 3, as well as the reports of the Inspector of Schools and that of the Sub-divisional Education Officer, contained in Annexures 6 and 7, respectively, would show that the petitioners are genuine teachers of the schools and names of respondent nos.6 to 9 were not found in the attendance register of the school. But the respondent Chairman without extending any opportunity to these petitioners allowed the objection filed by respondent nos.6 to 9.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos".6 to 9. on the other hand, contended that none of the reports either contained in Annexure-6 submitted by the Inspector of Schools or that contained in Annexure7 sent by the Sub-divisional Education Officer, discloses that the petitioners were found present at the time of inspection. Therefore, in compliance to the direction of the Chairman, the District Education Officer and the Assis