IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12286 of 2002 PADMESH JAIN, daughter of Late Rajendra Kumar Jain, resident of Meerganj, P. O. and P. S. Mirganj, District- Gopalganj….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. District Education Officer, Gopalganj. 4. Sudhir Kumar Jain, son of Santosh Kumar Jain, Jayent Jyoti-5, Riding Road, Sheikhpura, P. S. Shastri Nagar, Patna District-14. 5. Smt. Aasha Srivastava wife of Dhaiyana Srivastava Resident of Meerganj, P. S. and P. O. Meerganj District- Gopalganj, Assistant Teacher “Sahu Jain Balika Uchya Vidhyalaya, Meerganj, Gopalganj. .. Respondents. ----------- 11. 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also respondent no. 4, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Sahu Jain Balika Uchya Vidhyalaya, Meerganj (hereinafter referred to as „the School‟). The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ or and order directing respondent no. 2 to decide the matter in respect of mal-administration and malfunction done by the Secretary respondent no. 4 by way of appointing respondent no. 5 as Incharge Headmistress most junior teacher of Sahu Jain Girls High School at 2 Meerganj in District Gopalganj in place of the petitioner. As well as to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 the Director Secondary Education and the D.E.O. Gopalganj, respectively not to give effect to the order dated 9.9.2002 which has been passed by respondent no. 4 without jurisdiction.” Subsequently, the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition has filed an interlocutory application, I. A. No. 2954 of 2003 wherein she has sought certain additional relief by way of a direction for payment of subsistence allowance to her with effect from the date of her suspension i.e. 9.9.2002. Counsel for the petitioner would not only draw attention of this Court towards various orders seeking clarification from the respondents with regard to payment of subsistence allowance but would also bring before this Court an order of the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School dated 6.2.2008 showing that the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked. He would therefore submit that this Court should direct the respondents for making full payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension inasmuch as the petitioner was not paid any amount by way of subsistence 3 allowance. The aforesaid relief of the petitioner in her writ petition is primarily directed against the Managing Committee of the School. She is definitely an employee of minority school which is being funded by way of deficit grant by the State Government for payment. The payment of salary to such teachers of minority school, therefore, can only be made if the Managing Committee presents the bills before the District Education Officer who has to make their payment as per the Government circulars and within the staffing pattern for such minority schools. As such rules governing service conditions including suspension in terms of Bihar Service Code or Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as applicable in the case of government employees for payment of subsistence allowance would not be ipso facto applicable to the petitioner unless it is shown that the minority school or the government had adopted those rules by way of service condition of the petitioner envisaging applicability and compliance of Rule 96 of Bihar Service Code. In absence thereof, the relationship of the petitioner the employee with the Managing Committee of minority 4 school, the employer cannot fasten the liability of payment of subsistence allowance inasmuch as the same would still remain in the realm of a private contract which cannot be enforced in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this Court would only direct the District Education Officer to look into the grievance of the petitioner that since she had not been inflicted with any punishment by the Managing Committee whether would she be entitled for payment of her salary and/or subsistence allowance ?. As noted above, this Court cannot go into this question in a writ jurisdiction specially when the contract of service between the petitioner and Managing Committee is covered by the stipulations made under the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of teachers of primate minority schools. However, if the District Education Officer would find that the action of the Managing Committee either in not submitting the bill of the petitioner in isolation for payment of subsistence allowance and/or salary is unjustified, it would be open for him to pass any appropriate order against the Managing 5 Committee even with regard to stoppage of payment of grant-in-aid for all the teachers of the school. Therefore if the petitioner would approach the District Education Officer for this purpose of claiming payment of salary for the period of suspension and/or subsistence allowance, the District Education Officer will do the needful in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)