WP(C) 667/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.U. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing co unsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 5, to accept the join ing report as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pursuant to the order of appointment da ted 03.02.09. While it is the case of the petitioner that he has been selected f or appointment as LDC, it is the stand of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that no se lection was held for the post of LDC, but the President of the earlier Managing Committee before three days of demitting the office appointed the petitioner wit h another person namely Jahidur Rahman, without any selection. It is the stand of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that said Jahidur Rahman is the brother of the Pr esident and the petitioner is the close relative of the incumbent LDC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was selected for appointment as LDC, there cannot be any earthly reason not to allo w him to join the post. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5 as well as Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel , Education Department submits that the petitioner and said Jahidur Rahman have been favoured with the appointment orders without any selection. In fact, there was a direction from the authority not to hold the selection earlier scheduled t o be held. In this connection, Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel has produce d the relevant records, i.e. proceeding book, which reflects that there was a de cision not to hold the selection earlier scheduled to be held. On this point, Mr . Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding book ha s been manipulated. On perusal of the records including the proceeding book, no manipulation is discernible. Rather, it is found that a decision was taken not to hold the s election which was earlier scheduled to be held. Inspite of such decision, the P resident of the earlier Managing Committee before demitting the office favoured the petitioner and said Jahidur Rahman with the appointment orders without any s election. Above is the factual aspect of the matter. Mr. Goswami, learned Sr. coun sel representing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has also raised the question of mai ntainability of the writ petition in view of the fact that the school in questio n is purely a privately managed one being at the venture stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the school is in receipt of f inancial assistance. Merely because the school is on receipt of financial assist ance from the Govt., it cannot be said to be under deep and pervasive control of the Govt. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.