Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned PAAG-1, both for the State and the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’).

2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs :

“1. That the present petition is being preferred assailing validity and correctness of order under memo no. 462 Patna dated 08.06.2016 permitting the private respondent Sri Anand Kishore, Divisional Commissioner, Patna to function and discharge the duty as a Chairman of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna till further order ignoring/violating the provisions/section-4(B) of the Bihar School Examination Board, Act-1952 which deals the said issue related to filling vacancy in the office of the Chairman and for other necessary relief/reliefs to the basis of facts and circumstances of case enumerated and stated hereinafter.”

3. Basically, the contention is that the respondent no. 6 has been made the Chairman of the Board in violation of the statutory provisions specifically Sections 4A and 4B of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the Chairman of the Board was appointed under notification contained in Memo No. 421 dated 26.06.2014 under Section 4(1)(2) and 4(4) of the Act and his term was for a period of three years. He further submitted that subsequently the Board was also constituted under notification contained in Memo No. 605 dated 26.09.2014, by which, besides the Chairman, six other members were also nominated. However, the tenure was for a period of three years in terms of the earlier notification with regard to the Chairman. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the resignation of the erstwhile Chairman of the Board, there being a vacancy, the respondent no. 6, who was the Divisional Commissioner, Patna was appointed as Chairman of the Board in addition to his own duties till further orders. Learned counsel submitted that a procedure is prescribed under the Act, especially Section 4A thereof which stipulates that the Chairman shall be a whole time office bearer of the Board. Learned counsel submitted that the very initial term of appointment of the respondent no. 6, being in addition to his other charge, is unsustainable for the requirement of the statute is that the Chairman has to be a whole time officer of the Board. Learned counsel submitted that even if the Government could take recourse to Section 4B of the Act, upon such vacancy on the post of Chairman, it was the Director of Secondary Education, Bihar who had to be made the Chairman and only if he was unable for any reason to be the Chairman, any other person appointed by the State Government could carry on the office of the Chairman and that too for the unexpired portion of the term for which the Chairman would have continued in office. Learned counsel submitted that there is no discussion as to whether the Director of Secondary Education, Bihar had been considered and whether he was unable to hold office and further that after him, the consideration should have been first with regard to the other members of the Board and only thereafter, was the Government free to choose any other officer. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure not being followed with regard to the appointment of the Chairman, has rendered such appointment a nullity in the eyes of law. Even on facts, it was contended there have been grave irregularities in the conduct of the business of the Board where many examination papers of students have not been traced out and persons not competent to act as examiners have performed such duty. He further contended that on a large scale, the appointment of examiners was of Primary and Middle School teachers, though the requirement is that the examiners should be teachers of the secondary grade and that too who have experience of at least three years of teaching. It was further contende