WP(C) 6023/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. P. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Khatoniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents, more particularly, the Managing Committee of the School in which she has been allegedly working, to allow the petitioner to resume her dut y and pay her share of money donated by her for the development of the School. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School by Annexure-I appointment letter dated 15.12.2000. According to the petitioner, she had donated Rs. 35,000/- to the School. However, she has not been allowed to at tend the school since May, 2010. On the other hand, as per her Annexure-4 repres entation dated 31.5.2010, she was in the School from 30.12.2000 to 30.12.2005 a nd thereafter due to her personal problems and domestic affairs, she remained ab sent from duty without obtaining leave. In the said representation, it has been stated that presently she has no such inconvenience and thus in a position to re sume duty. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner in Annexure-4 representation has b een tried to be explained attributing the fault on the part of the Head Master o f the School. According to the statement made in the writ petition, the said rep resentation was made as per the dictation of the Head Master who had assured doi ng the needful in the matter towards allowing the petitioner to resume her duty. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has raised any kind of prot est against the said Annexure-4 forced representation (allegedly) dated 31.5.201 0, more so, when she was not allowed to resume duty. Be that as it may, as admit ted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the School is a purely privately managed one. It was only on 26.4.2010, some financial assistance has been provid ed to the School. Such financial assistance is not in the form of adhoc grants-i n-aid and thus the writ petition is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In th is connection, Mr. M. Khatoniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education has placed reliance on the order dated 28.7.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Cour t in WA 227/2010, holding the similar view. For all the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in the writ petiti on and accordingly it is dismissed.