WP(C) 1894/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. S Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and Mr. R Islam, l earned counsel for the respondent No.4 as well as Mr. M R Khandakum, learned cou nsel for the respondent No.5. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the record s, issue a Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ should not be issued directing the re spondent authorities not be drop/oust the petitioner from his service as Science Graduate Teacher of Namar Gaon High School and after showing cause/causes if an y, perusing the records of the case and upon hearing the parties be pleased to m ake the Rule absolute and/or pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner w as appointed in the school called Namaar Gaon High School vide resolution No.13/ 1996 dated 01.09.1996 adopted by the Managing Committee of the School as a Scien ce Teacher. According to the petitioner, he has been serving continuously in the school. In Para 6 of the writ petition, the admitted stand of the petitioner is that the school is being run by the Managing Committee of the School. In Para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that the school was recognised by the B oard of Secondary Education, Assam w.e.f. 01.01.1996. According to the petitioner, when the inspector of Schools, Dhubri by hi s letter dated 02.12.2003 asked the Headmaster of school to submit particulars o f the institution in respect of provincialisation and annual financial implicati on, the Headmaster of the said school submitted such particulars but without men tioning the name of the petitioner. In Para 13 of the writ petition, it is the p lea of the petitioner that the school would be provincialised in the near future and the event of such a happening the petitioner would be deprived of provincia lisation of his service. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed their counter-affidavits denying t he stand of the petitioner in the writ petition. As per affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.5, he has been working in the school in place of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it has been stated th at the petitioner was placed under suspension by resolution No.1 of the Managing Committee’s meeting held on 01.05.1997. Such a course of action was adopted in view of the fact that the petitioner was absent for six months w.e.f. 01.11.1996 . A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not re spond to the said show cause notice. Thus, the Managing Committee had no other a lternative and vide resolution adopted in its meeting held on 22.12.1998 authori sed the Headmaster of the school to appoint the respondent No.5 in place of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 was appointed on 20.03.1998 and sinc e then, it is the respondent No.5 who has been serving in the school in place of the petitioner. In Para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 it has been specifically stated that the service of the petitioner has been ter minated and in his place respondent No.5 has been appointed. All the aforesaid facts have not been stated in the writ petition and th us there is suppression of material facts. With that suppression, the aforesaid prayer has been made in the writ petition. From the materials on record it appea rs that the school in question is purely privately managed one and there is no d eep and pervasive control of the Government. In the said school the appointment of the petitioner was also not approved by any Governmental authority. As regard s the plea of the petitioner that the school is in receipt of grants-in-aid, it is the stand of the respondent that the school has received some financial assis tance as has been provided to such venture schools by the Government. It is in the above context a submission was made as recorded in the order dated 20.05.2010 that this case is covered by the decisions of this Co urt reported in 2008 (1) GLT 615 (Mubarak Hussain & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & or s.) and 2008 (4) GLT 561(Bhabani Sarma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) Mr. A D eka, learned Standing Counsel, Education submits that the school in question bei ng not under control of the departmental authorities, the writ petition is not m aintainable. Nothing could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that th e school is under deep and pervasive control of the Government. Only stand of th e petitioner is that the school has received some financial grants in the form o f financial assistance from the Government. Merely because the school has been p rovided with some financial assistance, it cannot be said to be an authority wit hin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in the aforesaid two decisions and under similar circumstances the writ petition s has been dismissed. For all the aforesaid reasons including the fact that the termin ation of service of the petitioner was way back in 1998 and the writ petition wa s filed in the year 2004, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed.