WP(C) 3945/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitione r. The Official Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 is represented by Mr. SK Das, learned standing counsel for the Education department. Also heard Mr. DC Bora, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 2) The petitioner, who functioned as the Headmaster of the Abdul Ka lam Azad L.P. School under the Biswanath Sub-Division in pursuant to the appoin tment order dated 20.8.2000, challenges the order dated 1.8.2008 (Annexure-12), whereby the Respondent No.5 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the school. The petitioner also challenges the authority of the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, to function as the President and Secretary of the managing committee of the school. A further direction is sought to enable the petitioner to continue as the Head master of the school. 3) Mr. Sheik contends that the appointment of the Respondent No.5 a s an Assistant Teacher on 1.8.2008, is illegal since the private Respondent No.5 on that particular date was working as an Anganwadi worker in the Bhitorsuti Mi lan Nagar AWC under Gabhoru ICDS Project of Tezpur since July, 2007. Her appoin tment given by the President of the managing committee, is contended to be illeg al as on the date of her appointment i.e. 1.8.2008, the President (Respondent No .7) was not functioning as the President of the managing committee, since he all egedly resigned from the said position on 10.2.2008 (Annexure-11). 4) To show that the Respondent No.5 was posted as an Anganwadi work er since last 3 years, a certificate dated 23.2.2010 (Annexure-14) of the CDPO o f the Gabhoru ICDS Project, Tezpur, is read by the learned counsel. 5) That the Respondent No.5 was working as an Anganwadi worker whe n she was appointed as a teacher, is practically not contested by the Respondent No.5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5 on 8.12. 2010, it can be inferred from the Annexure-F document, that the Respondent No.5 had resigned from her post of Anganwadi worker only on 4.5.2010. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that when on 1.8.2008 the Respondent No.5 was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the school, she was also working as an Anganwadi work er. Therefore, it is declared that appointment of the Respondent No.5, made on 1.8.2008 is illegal and the same is accordingly quashed. 6) Insofar as the challenge to the functioning of Respondent No.7 a s the President of the managing committee is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. S heikh that in the meeting of the managing committee held on 10.2.2008, the Respo ndent No.7 had resigned from the post of President and thereafter, one Md. Makbu l Ahmed was elected as the President of the school managing committee. On the b asis that the Respondent No.7 was not the President, the decision to remove the petitioner adopted in the subsequent proceedings of the managing committee held on 10.4.2008 and 4.6.2008, is challenged by the petitioner. 7) But Mr. DC Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Mr. SK Das, learned standing counsel, Education, casts serious d ispute on the genuineness of the proceeding of the meeting held on 10.2.2008 whe re the Respondent No.7 is purported to have resigned from the post of the Presid ent. They submit that no meeting was held on 10.2.2008 and Mr.Bora points out th at the so called signature of Respondent No.7 in the fake proceeding is over-wri tten and his name was incorrectly spelled. The genuine signature of the Respon dent No.7 is produced by Mr. Bora, to show that the two signatures were made by different persons. Accordingly, it is contended that since the determination of authenticity of signatures could only be a matter of evidence, the writ court s hould not examine the issue by considering that the Respondent No.7 on 10.2.2008 had resigned from the post of President. 8) The respondents also place reliance on Mubarak Hussain vs. Stat e of Assam reported in 2008(1) GLT 615, to submit that the decision to terminat e the service of the petitioner was a private dispute and the managing committee of the venture school not being an instrumentality of State, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, it is contended that insofar as the issue of removal of the petitioner and the resignation of the President of t he school managing committee is concerned, the petitioner should be relegated to remedies in civil court. 9) A cursory comparison of the two signatures allegedly of Responde nt No.7 in the photocopy of the minutes of the meeting of 10.8.2008 produced by Mr. Sheikh and the signature of Respondent No.7 produced by Mr. Bora, shows that the signatures are of different persons and one of them is bound to be a forger y and not signed by Md. Faisal Hoque (Respondent No.7), the then President of th e school managing committee. But the last word on this issue can be said only u pon evidence. 10) Furthermore, a reading of the decision in Mubarak Hussain(supra) persuades this Court to accept the contention of the respondents that the chall enge on the writ side to a termination decision taken by a private body like the managing committee of a venture school, should not be entertained and having re gard to the facts in this case, where the termination of the petitioner was effe cted by a private body, I am disinclined to consider the other prayers of the pe titioner. Accordingly, apart from quashing the appointment of the Respondent No .5, as she conceded to be functioning as an Anganwadi worker on the date of her appointment, this writ petition is not accepted insofar as other prayers of the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. This order will not, however, foreclose the petitioner’s option to seek alternative remedy, in accordance with law. 11) The case is disposed of with the above order.