IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.281 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 4 12.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 9.9.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. No. 10063 of 2009, whereby writ application was dismissed, being not maintainable as St. Joseph’s Convent Giril’s High School is an unaided minority religious school and not a State, within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Review application has been filed on the ground that subsequently, petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act, which disclosed that St. Joseph’s convent Girl’s High School, is receiving some grant from the State; as such it comes within the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Notices were issued to Respondent nos. 2 and 3, who entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, it is stated that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis - 2 - for teaching science subject. He did not possess requisite qualification for being appointed as Science teacher at (+2) level in the School. Subsequently the management of the School, for making permanent appointment, advertised vacancies on the post of teachers in Political science, Biology, Computer science, Physics Hindi and Urdu. Several persons, including the petitioner applied for the post of Physics teachers. Mr. Rajesh Kumar was selected for the post of Physics teacher at (+2) level considering the qualification and eligibility for the post. He possessed M.Sc degree which is requisite qualification for teacher at (+2) level. So far petitioner is concerned; he did not possess the post graduation qualification, which is minimum requisite qualification at (+2) level, for the post of teacher. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not denied these facts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that it is a fit case for review. It is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) Akumar