The appointment of the petitioner was found to be valid and in compliance with the relevant rules and constitutional provisions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and a direction for approval of services and salary payment.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and respondent nos. 6 and 7.

2. The B.M.P. Middile School, Burmamines, Jamshedpur, is a Minority aided Institution. As the post of the Headmaster and some Assistant Teachers were vacant, an advertisement was published in the local newspaper on 04.07.2006 whereby invitation was sought from the suitable candidates to fill up the said posts. The last date of receipt of application was 18th July, 2006. The petitioner, who is graduate and has completed her B.Ed, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. She was called for interview on 11.08.2008 and ultimately she was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher and was appointed vide letter dated 25.08.2008. She was directed to join her duties at the earliest preferably within a week of the receipt of the appointment letter. The petitioner pursuant to the said appointment, joined as an Assistant Teacher in B.M.P Middle School Burmamines, Jamshedpur on 28th August, 2008. The petitioner started working, but her salary was not paid to her. Her appointment was provisionally approved by the District Superintendent of Education vide letter dated 21.11.2008. Since the school is a Minority aided Institution, the State had to approve the appointment of this petitioner and only on such approval, the preposition chart had to be submitted to the State for release of the fund on the head of salary. Since the aforesaid procedure was not completed by the State and as the petitioner was serving the school without salary, she moved this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 1712 of 2010.

3. The said writ application was disposed of on 14th December, 2011 directing the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi to take a decision in respect of giving approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher. In compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1712 of 2010, an order was passed on 13.07.2012 contained in memo no. 449/Vidi Law whereby the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi has held that the petitioner was appointed illegally thus her appointment cannot be approved. This gave rise to the second round of the litigations between the parties.

4. The State and the Managing Committee of the School, on being noticed, appeared before this Court and filed their respective counter affidavits.

5. The State in their counter affidavit supported the decision taken by the Director and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. It has been further submitted that as per rule 9 of the Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rule, 2012, a panel is valid for one year and as the appointment made was after a period of one year, the same is illegal. It was stated that in the advertisement, it was not mentioned that how many vacant posts are to be filled up and thus on this score only, it can be said that the appointment is violative of the provision of law. Further it has been contended that vide letter dated 25.09.2006 vide memo no. 2470 dated 3rd October, 2006, there was a direction to stop all the process of appointment but ignoring the said direction of the District Superintendent of Education, the School Authorities went on to fill up the post, which is also illegal. Further, it has been contended that there was an interpolation in the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body. The Managing Committee of the School had initially decided to fill up only one post but later on it was interpolated, which gives rise to a suspicion that the entire process, was not according to the rules and the law. It was contented that decision was taken to fill up the vacant posts but no permission was taken from the authority concerned and infact the Managing Committee had not got the authority to take a decision to fill up the said post. On these grounds, the counsel for the State submits that the appointment of this petitioner is illegal and thus no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner and the State has correct