WP(C) 4223/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Admittedly, the School in which the petitioner is working is a venture S chool. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the list prepared for financia l assistance, the petitioner has been shown as Assistant Teacher in Assamese ins tead of only Assistant Teacher. In the garb of such dispute only in respect of g rant of financial assistance, the petitioner cannot agitate his grievance relati ng to the particular designation attributed to him. Moreover, there is no distin ction between an Assistant Teacher (General) and Assistant Teacher(Assamese). While Mr. A.M. Borbhuiya, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the controversy involved, the writ petition is maintainable, Mr. P.N . Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, submits that the Scho ol being at venture stage without any control of the Government, the dispute rai sed in the writ petition is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this connectio n, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench dated 28.7.2010 passed in WA 227/2010. In the said Division Bench judgement, it has been held th at such dispute relating to a private School cannot be resolved exercising writ jurisdiction. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may pursue his remedy elsewhere, if so advised.