WP(C) 4974/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pathak, lea rned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. of Assam. For the order which I proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue formal notice. The writ petitioners claim to have been serving as Assistant Teacher (Science) w ith the Dopdar Girls’ High School, Sivasagar(hereinafter for short referred to a s the School) they having been appointed by the Managing Committee thereof. Th e petitioners have stated that the institution is a non-provincialized one. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the Head Mistress i n the School is not allowing them to attend the classes. They have further comp lained that that the Head Mistress of the School, though a duly approved Managin g Committee is in office has illegally caused an interview to be conducted witho ut any reference to it with a purpose of replacing them by the private responden ts. The learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to Rule 6 of the Assam Ai ded High/Higher Sec/Middle Schools Management Rules, 1976 has urged that the act ions of the Head Mistress of the School are wholly illegal and arbitrary and are not sanctioned thereby. Mr. Saikia has urged that as the institution is a non- provincialized one, this Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction in respo nse to the grievances made in the instant petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded averments supported by an affidavit, this Court for the present is inclin ed to sustain the objection raised on behalf of the respondents. Admittedly, th e School is a non-provincialized one. The materials on record are jejune to demo nstrably establish the role of the departmental authorities to control and manag e the affairs thereof. However, having regard to the order dated 17.06.2010 of t he Inspector of Schools, S.D.C., Sivsagar reconstituting the Managing Committee of the School involved, this Court considers it appropriate to close the instant proceeding by leaving the petitioners at liberty to submit an appropriate repre sentation before the said authority ventilating their grievances. If the same i s done, the aforementioned authority would deal with it, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not offered any comment on the merit of t he petitioners’ contentions and it would be within the discretion and domain of the aforementioned State authority to take a decision on their representation, i f so filed, however strictly in terms of the law applicable. No costs.