WP(C) 5533/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hearing Mrs. M Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Departmen t. The petitioner applied for the post of teacher in response to the advertisement dated 20.4.2010 issued by the Managing Committee of the Rampur Chalapathar Sahed Ali High School (Respondent No.4) and is aggrieved by the action of the school Managing Committe e in giving appointment to Respondent No.7 (Anuar Sadat). It is contended by Mr. Mahanta that although the appointments were to be made on merit, the respondent No.7, who was evaluated the lowest on merit, was preferre d for appointment by ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who was enlisted in m erit position No.1 by the Selection Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although the appointmen ts in Government Aided Schools are made by the Managing Committee, the said appo intments require prior approval of the Inspector of Schools. The learned Standing Counsel for Education Department, however, submits that in case of non-provincialised Venture Schools, like the present one, which receives nominal Government aid, interference by the Writ Court is not justified inasmuc h as the appointing authority i.e. the Managing Committee of the School is not a State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, the learned counsel refers to an order of the Di vision Bench of this Court recorded on 28.7.2010 in WA 227/2010 (Md. Ali Haidar Vs. State of Assam & Ors.). A look at the Division Bench order shows that a Venture School receiving grants- in-aid and recognized by the State, does not convert the school into a State o r an authority for the purpose of Article 12. In that case, the submission mad e by the appellant that the School performs public functions and therefore, the Writ Court is entitled to examine the legality of the decision of the Managing C ommittee was negated as the Court and the Division Bench held that there is noth ing to suggest that the control by the State is all pervasive, insofar as the Sc hool management is concerned. Having regard to the above decision, this Writ Court is not inclined to examine the legality of the decision of the Managing Committee of a private school. However, since it is provided in Appendix-I of the Assam Education Department Ru les and Orders that prior approval of the Inspector of Schools is required to be obtained for making appointments, the petitioner is permitted to make a represe ntation on his grievances to the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon. If such a represe ntation is filed, the said authority would consider the same before according ap proval to the decision of the School Managing Committee to appoint the Responden t No.7 as a teacher of Rampur Chalapathar Sahed Ali High School. The necessary decision be taken by the Inspector of Schools within a period of f our weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s order. The petition er may furnish a copy of the writ petition along with this Court’s order before the said Officer to enable him to consider the grievances raised by the petition er against his non-selection by the School Managing Committee. Before any decision is taken, the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon may offer an oppo rtunity to the respondent No.7 (Anuar Sadat) and the Managing Committee of the R ampur Chalapathar Sahed Ali High School (Respondent No.4), in the process of con sidering the grievances of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly.