WP(C) 6121/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing counsel, Education Department. The writ petitioner has been filed making a grievance against the appoin tment of the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Teacher in the school called Diara Hi gh School for which an advertisement was issued on 30.06.2007. According to the petitioner, although an interview was fixed for the post on 24.11.07, but no suc h interview was held and the Managing Committee of the school surreptitiously ap pointed the respondent No. 6. Be it stated here that the copy of the appointment order of the respondent No. 6 has not been annexed to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the plea raised in th e writ petition has been denied. It is stated here that the petitioner did not a ppear in the interview held on 10.07.2007 and thus, there is no question of cons ideration of his case. As regards the plea of the petitioner that by a notice af fixed in the notice board of the school scheduled to be held on 10.07.2010 was p ostponed until further order, according to the respondents, the copy of the not ice on a plain paper annexed by the petitioner in the affidavit in reply is a fi ctitious documents and in fact no such notice was affixed in the notice board. In the writ petition, the plea of postponement of the interview has not been taken. In this connection, Annexure-7 representation dated 26.11.07 may al so bereferred to. In the said representation only plea taken was that the appoin tment was made without any interview. There is no whisper about the alleged post ponement of the interview. The plea has been taken only in the rejoinder affidav it. Apart from the above, the school being a privately managed one, the writ petitio n is not maintainable. Although the petitioner has stated about the departmental promotion, recognition of the school and receipt of financial assistance in the year 2005, that by itself will not bring the Managing Committee of the school t o the writ jurisdiction recognising to be the authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. Under similar situation, this Court by its judgment reported in 20 08 (3) GLT 481 (Moinul Haque vs. State of Assam and ors.) and 2008 (1) GLT 615 ( Mubarak Hussan and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.), has held that the schools which are privately managed are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The case in Moinul Haque (supra), is more less exactly the same with the present case. There is nothing to indicate that any of the authorities of the Govt. ar e involved in the matter. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintaina ble. However, it will be open for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedy as may be available to him.