Minority Institutions are immune from the reservation policy and the court must balance minority rights with reservation for backward class citizens.

Shivaji Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. In all these cases, since common issue has been raised about applicability of reservation in Minority Institutions they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of brevity, facts of CWJC No. 10719 of 2007 is being given below.

4. The petitioners in all the four cases are employees of Minority Institutions and their appointments have not been approved by the State of Bihar on the ground that the reservation policy as framed by the State of Bihar was not followed while making selection and appointment of candidates as teachers of Minority Institutions.

5. In the present case, Dayanand Kanya Primary School admittedly is a linguistic Minority institution had published an advertisement on 27th February 2004. The requisite qualification for appointment was Matric trained and later on by issuing corrigendum, qualification was changed/enhanced from Matric trained to Intermediate trained, written test was conducted and after selection of candidates, those who were found qualified in the written test, were called for interview. Anita Kumari, petitioner also participated in the interview and after adding the marks obtained in the written examination as well as of the interview, petitioners were appointed vide letter No. 375 dated 11th May 2004 and, accordingly, she joined the School on 21st May 2004. After acceptance of joining, the school authority informed the District Superintendent of Education, Patna about the appointment of the petitioner and later on vide letter no.56 of 2004 dated 4th December 2004 the school authority requested for approval of appointment of the petitioner.

6. It appears from the record that after the appointment and joining petitioner has been regularly discharging the duty of the school and on 2nd February 2005, the District Superintendent of Education inspected the school and also signed the Attendance Register of teacher where the name of petitioner was standing.

7. As repeatedly there was a request for approval of the appointment of the petitioners, but never any response was given by the State. For the first time on 12th May 2005, the District Superintendent of Education sought some clarifications with regard to appointment of petitioner and in turn the School replied queries and had provided all materials. One of the query was related to observance of reservation policy prescribed by the State. Repeated requests were made for granting approval but no response was received. Thereafter petitioner filed CWJC No. 14432 of 2006 and during the pendency of the writ petition, the District Superintendent of Education vide Letter No. 9539 dated 13th December 2006 (Annexure-9) refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner. The Court after hearing the parties, quashed the said letter on the ground of nonobservance of principles of natural justice giving liberty to provide opportunity of hearing and to take fresh decision.

8. In pursuance of the order of this Court, petitioner filed a detailed representation providing the manner of selection was conducted by the School and made a prayer for grant of approval and payment of salary. Reminder was also given vide letter dated 26th June 2007 (Annexure-11 Series) the then District Superintendent of Education vide letter No. 5837 dated 26th July 2007 refused to grant approval of her service, thereby rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that the School was provided with six posts of teachers by the State, out of which, four teachers were regularly appointed and three were from the general category and one from the most backward category. As the petitioner falls in the category of general category candidate, the appointment of the petitioner is against the reservation policy decision of the Government and accordingly, appointment of petitioner was not approved, vide impugned order which is under challenge before this Court.

9. Counsel