IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4120 OF 2007 JYOTI SINHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O SRI MAHESH PRASAD SINHA, R/O QUARTER NO. C/14, DALMIANAGAR COLONY, P.O. DALIMANAGAR, P.S DEHRI ON SONE, DISTRICT ROHTAS. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT DISTRICT PATNA. 4.THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,NEW SECRETARIATE, DISTRICT PATNA. 5.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,NEW SECRETARIATE, DISTRICT PATNA. 6.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BALIKA UCHA VIDYALAYA, DALIMANAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS THROUGH DR. O.P. LALL, SECRETARY, SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BALIKA UCHA VIDYALAYA, DALMIANAGAR. 7.DR. J.K JAIN, MEMBER AND PREVIOUS SECRETARY/PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BALIKA UCHA VIDHYALAYA, DALMIANAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 8.SRI BINDHVASHNI LAL, HEADMASTER OF THE BALIKA UCHA VIDHYALAYA, DALIMANAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 9.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT ROHTAS, SASARAM. 10.THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DALMIANAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 17.08.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the Private Managing Committee of an aided minority School way back in the year 1989, this writ 2 application for following relief:- “i.For a direction on the respondents no. 3 to 4 (specially Director, secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar) to sanction and approval of post of clerk as recommended by Respondent 9, District Education Officer, Rohtas on which petitioner was working. ii.For staying further action/ process with regard to appointment for the post of clerk advertised in “Dainik Jagaran” dated 22.01.2007 contained in Annexure-9 on which petitioner was working. iii.To re-instate the petitioner on the post of clerk by quashing termination order contained in Annexure-8 dated 29.03.1989. iv.And for further direction to provide all consequential benefits. v.For a direction to the presiding officer, Labour Court, Rohtas to conclude the reference Case no. 9/2000 within a specified time limit of three months.” will simply be not maintainable, inasmuch as, the relevant prayer nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) as quoted above relates exclusively to a private Managing Committee of the aided school which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As with regard to the first prayer contained in paragraph no. 1, the petitioner does not have any right to claim sanction of post of Clerk after her services had already been terminated way 3 back by the employer Managing Committee of a minority School in the year 1989 on the ground of her being appointed against an unsanctioned post. The matter relating to sanction of post in minority institution lies between the founder of the minority School and its Managing Committee vis a vis the State Government and its officials and a terminated teacher has nothing to do with the same. In any event, in the counter affidavit it has been explained that the Government after examining the proposal had found no good reason to sanction additional post of Clerk in the School in question. That would lead this Court to consider the last prayer of the petitioner as with regard to a direction to the concerned Labour Court for disposal of reference case no. 9 of 2000 at an early date. Since this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the respondents in their counter affidavit and there is no pleading as to why the case in hand, a reference case of the year 2000 has been kept pending for the last 11 years, all that this Court would observe is that if 4 the pleadings have already been completed by both the parties, the concerned Labour Court should make its best efforts to dispose of the pending reference case of the petitioner expeditiously, inasmuch as, the same relates to termination of service in the year 1989. This Court will however make it clear that nothing said in this order would be used to the prejudice of either parties in the pending reference case in the Labour Court, which will decide the matter strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)