The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the petitioner's services as an Assistant Teacher on honorary basis by the Managing Committee of the school was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as it was a purely private affair between the school Managing Committee and the petitioner.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The challenge made in this writ petition is in respect of termination of the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (honorary basis) by the Managing Committee of the school.

2. The petitioner was first appointed as Assistant Teacher on honorary basis in the school in question by the Managing Committee of the school by its order dated 22.1.1989 in response to the application submitted by the petitioner on 8.1.1989. According to the petitioner she was the second senior most teacher of the school after one Sri Anser Ali. Upon his resignation from the post of Headmaster of the school with effect from 26.3.1998 accepted by the Managing Committee on 25.5.1998, she was under expectation to be appointed as in-charge Headmistress of the school. However, contrary to such expectation, the Managing Committee circulated an advertisement on 12.5.1998 confining the candidatures only to the male candidates. According to the petitioner, same was done with a view to deprive her from the post of Headmistress.

3. In the aforesaid situation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 2813/1998 and by interim order dated 10.6.1998, the advertisement was stayed. Later on, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 11.8.1999. In between, the Managing Committee of the school terminated her service by its resolution adopted on 27.6.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Committee, being annoyed with her in view of her filing the aforesaid writ petition, adopted such a course of action.

4. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 26.8.1999 making a challenge to the impugned order of termination, dated 27.6.1998, i.e., after about 15 months of such termination of service. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about the subsequent developments that took place in respect of the post earlier being held by her. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in her service. Such an order was passed on 29.9.1999. Being aggrieved, the Managing Committee of the school represented by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed Misc. Case No. 1184/1999 disclosing the developments that took place after termination of services of the petitioner. It was stated in the application that the post earlier being held by the petitioner had since been filled up firstly by one Sri Himan Kumar Saikia and then by the respondent No. 7. It was contended that since the post had been filled up 9.91998 much before the interim order passed on 29.9.1999, the order would put the management in difficulty since there was no post to accommodate the petitioner. Be it stated here that the post in question is Assistant Teacher in Assamese presently being held by the respondent No. 7.

5. The interim order passed on 29.9.1999 was vacated by order dated 24.11.1999 taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The respondent No. 7 was not made a party to the writ proceeding, but later on as per order of this Court passed on 24.11.1999, she was added respondent No. 7 on the verbal prayer of the petitioner. Although, she stood impleaded in the writ proceeding, there is no challenge to her appointment in this proceeding. In fact, no averments have been made in respect of her selection and appointment.

6. The petitioner has not stated anything as to how the action of the Managing Committee of the school without any control over it of any governmental authorities could be amenable to writ jurisdiction. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Be it stated here that these two respondents although have not filed any separate counter affidavit, but projected the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1184/1999 to be their counter affidavit, the same having exhaustively dealt with the contentions rai