WP(C) 3982/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr. M U Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Rajk owa, learned counsel appearing for the Education Department nd Mr. R. Islam, lea rned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8,9 & 10. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the resolution taken by the Managing Committee of Musaimanpara ME Madrassa School on 01-06-2011 whereby it was stated that the petitioner has already submitted resignation for the post of Asstt. Science Teacher on 10-05-2010. By the aforesaid resolution, one Shri Rafiqul Islam, who has been arrayed at respondent No.10 was given app ointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has approached this C ourt on 22-11-2011. This Court after hearing the parties had observed that the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition will be decided. Accor dingly, today, the issue regarding the maintainability has been heard. The lear ned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgment of the High Cour t passed in CR No. WA 181 of 2010 and also has contended that since the school r eceived the financial assistance from the State Government, writ under Article 2 26 will be maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for th e respondent Nos. 8,9 & 10 has also referred to the certain decision of this Cou rt in which it has been stated that the issue regarding the maintainability rela ting to cases of venture schools has also discussed and it was also decided that no writ would lie. However, without going into this aspect whether writ would l ie against the private management, it would be sufficient, if one refers to rule 21 sub rule (d) of the Assam Non Education ( Regulation of Management Rules) 20 07 framed under Assam Non Government Education Institutions (Regulation and Man agement) Act, 2006. Rule 21 sub-rule (d) specifically provides that any employee of the r ecognized institution, who is aggrieved by imposing the penalty of removal or te rmination of service may prefer an appeal to the appropriate court. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he ha s been illegally terminated from service as Assistant Teacher (Science). That be ing so, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the approp riate forum as contemplated under Rule 21 sub-rule (d) of the aforesaid Act. Ac cordingly, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal before the appropriate court in terms of the above Rules. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the abov e direction.