Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the District Education Officer, Patna respondent no. 2 to pay the monthly salary as well as the arrear of the salary to the petitioner which has been withheld since 1st April, 1999 without any cogent reason.

(ii) For issuance of an writ for quashing the memo no. 59 Patna dated 7.1.2003 of the Secretary, Vidyalaya Seva Board, Bihar, Patna contained in Annexure-13 whereby and whereunder the clarification has been sought for from the District Education Officer, Patna in the matter of approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate) after her continuous service of 19 years as the advertisement was defective.

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher in English subject on the basis of the advertisement dated 12th Sept. 1984, earlier pay fixation by the then District Education Officer, Patna respondent no. 2 in terms of letter No. 34, 318 dated 13.1.1986, 7.3.1986 of the District Secretary Education, Bihar, Patna, contained in Annexure-8, memo No. 1342 Patna dated 12.6.98 of the then District Education Officer, Patna contained in Annexure-9 and continuous service for 19 years.

(iv) For any other relief and reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.”

3. Basically the question is whether the State would be obliged to pay the salary of the petitioner who was appointed in a private minority school under a private Managing Committee. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to an advertisement in the year 1984. The said advertisement was issued on 12.09.1984 but neither did it disclose any post nor any qualification and only applications were invited for appointment of Graduate Trained Female Assistant Teacher. In terms thereof, the petitioner faced interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 22.11.1984 and in the merit list dated 22.11.1984, she was placed at serial number-1 in the panel. Accordingly, she was issued appointment letter and joined on 27.11.1984. Even the appointment letter did not disclose any post on which the petitioner was appointed and rather it only mentions that the petitioner was being appointed on a temporary basis on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner continued on the said post and was also getting the pay. From April, 1999, when the salary of the petitioner was stopped, the Vidyalaya Shiksha Board asked for clarification from the District Education Officer, Patna and the Secretary of the school on 01.06.2001. The Secretary of the school submitted a report on 10.08.2001 informing that the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.1984 on the post of Assistant Teacher against the vacant and sanctioned post in English subject and was continuing since then. The Secretary also issued a certificate on 15.05.2002 to this effect. The Vidyalaya Shiksha Board again asked for clarification from the District Education Officer, Patna on 17.01.2003 with regard to the defect in the advertisement published on 12.09.1984. The matter remained pending resulting in the petitioner approaching the Court in the present writ application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if there were defects in the advertisement, the petitioner having worked on the post for a long time, i.e., more than 15 years, is entitled to salary. It was submitted that she was appointed on a vacant sanctioned post and, thus, there is no impediment in paying salary for the post against which the petitioner has been appointed, as has been certified by the Secretary of the school in certificate dated 15.05.2002. He relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 27.01.2003 in L.P.A. No. 494 of 2002 in the case of Sarla Rohilla Vs. The State of Bihar &