IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8017 of 2007 MD.MINHAJ ALAM,S/O LATE MD. ABBAS, R/O VILLAGE-BHOKRAHA, P.O. KHEMCHAND, P.S.KHEMCHAND, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(INCHARGE ORIENTAL EDUCATION) SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN OF THE BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD,VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA. 4.THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA. 5.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA. 6.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PURNEA. 7.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MADARSA RAHMANIA AT BHOKRAHA,P.O & P.S. KHEMCHAND, DISTRICT-PURNEA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MD. JAMILUDDIN. 8.MD. JAMILUDDIN, SECRETARY OF MADARSA RAHMANIA AT BHOKRAHA, P.0. & P.S.KHEMCHAND, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.04.2011 Heard counsel for the parties as with regard to solitary prayer of the petitioner seeking direction to the Respondents for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground. On perusal of record this court would find that the petitioner's father was working in a private Madarsa and was receiving his salary by way of grant in aid by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. After his death in harness, the 2 petitioner had filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground which was not entertained by the Managing Committee of the Private Madarsa. The petitioner is said to have also moved before the Chairman of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board for directing the Managing Committee of private Madarsa to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground but when that had not done, the petitioner has filed this writ application. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the father of the petitioner was receiving payment of salary from the funds of the State Government even by way of grant in aid on the basis of approval of his services by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, the petitioner will have a right of at least being considered for appointment on compassionate ground and this Court can not remain a mute spectator to this indifferent attitude of the Managing Committee and the Board as with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Counsel for the 3 petitioner in this context, would also refer to Section 7 and 12 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act 1988, to substantiate that the Chairman of the Board has got sufficient power by way of control on the Private Madarsa and therefore, the Chairman of the Board was under an obligation to consider the grievance of the petitioner, by way of issuing direction to the Managing Committee of the school for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. Counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, on the other hand would submit that this writ application is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the Managing Committee of private Madarsa which alone can appoint the petitioner on any ground including compassionate ground, is not an authority within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board has been vested no power of issuing direction to the Managing Committee for making appointment in Private 4 Madarsa and its role is limited to approving the appointment, so made by the Managing Committee and that too for limited purpose of providing grant in aid from the funds of State Government. He has explained that writ application cannot be said to be maintainable only because the Board has been impleaded as a party to the writ application. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s writ application for appointment on compassionate ground in a Private Madarsa, wherein power of appointment is also vested in a Private Body, the Managing Committee of the Madarsa is not maintainable. The grant in aid given by the State Government for fulfilment of certain claims for payment of difference of salary or even full salary will not make the father of the petitioner a Government servant. The Government policy dated 05.10.1991, is only in respect of Government servants dying in harness. Admittedly the Private Madarsa are not covered by such Government policy and therefore, this Court 5 would find it difficult to even entertain this writ application much less issue direction to a private body like the Managing Committee of the Private Madarsa which definitely is not a State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India. As with regard to the alleged inaction on the part of the Board this Court would find that the Board has not been vested with any power to interfere in the complete autonomy relating to appointment of teachers in private Madarsa. The provisions of Bihar Madarsa Education Act is only confined to approval of service of duly appointed teachers of private Madarsa for payment of their salary by way of grant in and from the funds of the State Government and such regulations control does neither make the madarsa a government institution nor its employee, the government servant for whom alone the policy of compassionate appointment is in force. This aspect of the matter infact stands concluded in a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of 6 Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and others reported in 1999(1) PLJR 529. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)