S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether a teacher in a privately managed school (though aided financially by the State) can maintain a writ petition against the termination of his services by such a school, has come to be the focal issue in this reference to the Full Bench.

2. Since this writ petition must founder on the bed-rock of the fatal objection to its very maintainability, it is unnecessary and indeed would be wasteful to delve into its facts too deeply. It suffices to notice the salient features pertaining to the maintainability of the writ petition which has been strenuously objected to by both the contesting State and the private respondent.

3. From the somewhat voluminuous pleadings it emerges that the respondent Marwari Kanya Pathshala, Bhagalpur, is a middle school, purely private in character, and run by a managing committee of its own. It is common ground that the said school has not been taken over under the Bihar Non-Government Elementary (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976. At the material time the Headmistress of the said school was one Shrimati Mohini Tiwari who admittedly is the maternal aunt of the present petitioner, Shrimati Manju Devi. The Headmistress purported to appoint the petitioner on the 18th Jan., 1981 as a teacher in the school on a paltry honorarium of Rs. 55/- only. However, even this honorarium was discontinued by the managing committee (vide Resolution No. 7 of its meeting held on the 3rd June, 1983). The petitioner was, however, charitably allowed to work without any payment whatsoever to enable her to be recommended for training by the District Superintendent of Education and this was also done on the request of the then Headmistress who, as noticed, was closely related to her.

4. On behalf of respondent 2 it has been categorically averred in his counter-affidavit that the Headmistress aforesaid conveyed false and fraudulent information about the petitioner to both the managing committee and the education authorities and even went to the extent of interpolating the letters and correspondence of the school in this context. When the facts came to the knowledge of the authorities the approval given to the continuance of the petitioner in the school was peremptorily recalled (vide Annexure-3). It has been categorically averred that respondent 1, the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, having come to know about the securing of his approval to the petitioners appointment by the Headmistress on the basis of false and fraudulent representation, had issued notice as per Memo No. 11578, dt. 12th July, 1985, directing her to show cause why she should not be suspended and proceeded against. However, the Headmistress in reply chose to tender her resignation on the 27th July, 1985, which was accepted by the managing committee with effect from the 1st Aug., 1985.

5. Apparently aggrieved by the refusal of the authorities to even recommend the petitioners name for training classes, the petitioner had earlier preferred Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2195 of 1985. However, even at the threshold stage she chose not to press the same and the application was permitted to be withdrawn on the 24th May, 1985 with the following observation in the order :

"Therefore, he will be well advised to recommend her name for training well within time. With the aforesaid observation and direction the application is permitted to be withdrawn."

However, two months later on the 29th July, 1985 (vide Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit of respondent 2) the managing committee in express terms terminated her services whilst noticing that she had been earlier permitted to work on a paltry honorarium which was later withdrawn altogether and that she was serving the school intermittently. The petitioner thereafter filed a title suit in the Court of the Munsif, Bhagalpur, which, however, was rejected under O.VII, R.11(c) of the Civil P. C. by the learned Munsif on the 28th of August, 1985 (vide Annexure-12 to the writ p