Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Three writ applications, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, were filed by one Abdul Gafur Mondal and the applications were registered as WP(C) 4612/2011, WP(C) 6109/2012 and WP(C) 2272/2013. The writ petitions have been placed before the Full Bench to consider the following question of law:

"Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a purely privately managed institution, such as, venture school contemplated in Section 2(s) of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011?"

2. It will be necessary, at the outset, to outline only the basic factual matrix of the aforesaid three writ petitions for the purpose of understanding how the question had arisen for consideration of the Full Bench.

3. The case set out in WP(C) 4612/2011 is that the petitioner is the founder Assistant Teacher of a school, namely, Janakalyan Venture Lower Primary (VLP) School, established on 01.01.1987, and he was working in the said school till the filing of the writ petition with full satisfaction of all concerned. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were appointed as Assistant Teacher in the said school on 10.03.2008 and 10.03.2010, respectively. Thus, the petitioner should be treated as the First Assistant Teacher and the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 as the Second and Third Assistant Teacher, respectively, in order of seniority. The school received financial assistance for the period 2010-2011 and the Managing Committee was constituted and approved by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara. The writ petition was filed, primarily, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to prepare a gradation list and to treat the writ petitioner as the First Assistant Teacher of the school in order of seniority amongst the Assistant Teachers and also for provincialisatin of his services.

"(ii) Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, i.e., Secretary cum Headmaster, and the President of the Managing Committee of the Janakalyan VLP School, respectively, had filed affidavit, wherein it was stated that though the school was established with effect from 01.01.1987, there was no Assistant Teacher in the school till 1991. Thereafter, by a Resolution dated 30.07.1992, the School Managing Committee appointed one Jahura Khatun as the First Assistant Teacher, but she was removed by the School Managing Committee by a Resolution dated 02.06.1999 due to her irregular attendance. Thereafter, by a Resolution dated 01.07.1999, the School Managing Committee decided to appoint the present petitioner as Assistant Teacher in place of Jahura Khatun and, thus, the petitioner came to be appointed and he had been working as Assistant Teacher till 04.06.2008 without having any formal appointment and without submitting any joining report to that effect. The petitioner was not regular in attending school and, therefore, the School Managing Committee had adopted a Resolution, dated 02.05.2001, asking him to be regular in attendance. Subsequently, show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, but there was no improvement in his attendance and, therefore, the School Managing Committee adopted a Resolution, being Resolution No. 1, dated 05.06.2008, whereby the petitioner was terminated/dismissed from service. After termination of the petitioner, respondent No. 8 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.06.2008 and he had been serving in that capacity since his date of joining on 23.06.2008. The names of the respondent Nos. 6 and 8 had figured as Head Teacher and Assistant Teacher in the District Information System for Education (for short, 'DISE') Code for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and forms had been filled up for provincialisation of their services in terms of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act of 2011').

(iii) The respondent No. 8 had taken the same stand as respondent Nos. 6 and 7."

4. WP(C) 6109/2012 was filed