Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order 21-11-1988 as contained in Annexure 1, by which respondent No. 3, Smt. Indu Mishra, has been appointed as Head Mistress in Adarsha Jhunjhunwala Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the School). 2. The relevant facts may be stated in short. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in the School and according to her because of her seniority, she had been discharging the functions of Headmistress before joining of respondent No. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner does not claim that she is entitled to be appointed as Head Mistress of the School. But her grievance is that respondent No. 3 cannot be allowed to function on that post on the ground that her appointment in the cadre of Head Mistress was illegal. 3. Sec. 10 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to the Act) provides for establishment and functioning of School Service Board and Sub-sec. (9) thereof reads as thereunder: Sec. 10(9). The Board shall make recommendations for appointment of teachers and for appointment or promotion of Headmasters of nationalised secondary schools to the Director in accordance with this Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder: Provided that for promotion of teachers to the selection grade post the recommendation of the Board shall not be necessary. Provided further that in the absence of the recommendation of the Board, and the special circumstances and in anticipation of the recommendation of the Board, the State Government shall be competent to make ad hoc promotion to the post of Headmaster for a period not exceeding six months and to make ad hoc appointment in the prescribed manner to the post of teachers for a period not exceeding six months and to make ad hoc appointment in the prescribed manner to the post of teachers for a period not exceeding six months ; Provided also that in the event of the death of a Government Servant during the service period, his dependent possessing requisite qualification for the post of teacher may be appointed to the post of teacher by the Director on compassionate ground on the orders of the State Government, and in such cases the recommendation of the School Service Board 3hall not be necessary. The Rule 7 of the Bihar Nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, (.hereinafter the Rules only) provides that 80% of the vacancies in the post of Head Mistress will be filled up by promotion from the Assistant Teacher of Selection Grade and remaining 20% will be tilled by direct appointment. 4 It is the common case of the parties that the School Service Board had published an advertisement bearing No. 1/86 inviting applications for direct appointment of Headmasters in the nationalised Secondary Schools. Pursuant thereof many aspirants including respondent No. 3 had applied. After due scrutiny, the Board recommended the names of 225 candidates including the petitioner for being appointed in the cadre of Headmaster. Admittedly the petitioner was not one among them. 5. It also appeared that a list of 446 eligible Assistant Teachers was also finalised by the Director, Secondary Education after completion of all the formalities for the promotion on the post of Headmaster/Headmistress, But because of stay order dated 17-9-87 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4150/1987 restraining the said promotions, the Government decided not to fill up the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in Nationalised Secondary School till the said writ application was finally disposed of. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the Government thought it proper to at least fill up the vacant post of Headmistress in the Project Schools from amongst the lady post candidates out of the aforesaid 225 candidates recommended by the School Service Board. The Government under its Notification contained in Memo No. 3197-3835, dated 2-10-88 issued under the signature of respondent No. 1, the Director, appointed 224 lady teachers including the respondent No. 1 as Head Mistress in different Project Girls High Schools. According to the petitioner the name of respondent No. 3 occurred at Serial No. 166 of the said Notification and she was appointed as the Head Mistress in Project Girls High School, Kahalgaon. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that thereafter something transpired at the ministerial lavel and the respondent No. 3 was favoured with the appointment in the present school which is a nationalised School and not a project school. 7. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that thereafter something transpired at the ministerial lavel and the respondent No. 3 was favoured with the appointment in the present school which is a nationalised School and not a project school. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure adopted for appointing respondent No. 3 in the school is not only arbitrary but is in direct conflict with the provisions contained under the Act, Rules and the policy adopted by the Government itself. On the other hand, the State Government as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 by referring to the documents placed on the record has submitted that no illegality has been committed in appointment of the petitioner in the School in question. 8. On careful consideration of the contentions and the statutory provisions as well as the policy decision of the Government and judicial restraint placed on appointment of Headmaster in the Nationalised Secondary Schools, it is quite clear that the respondent No. 3 could not have been appointed as a Headmistress in a Nationalised Secondary School by applying a pick-and-choose method and showing special favour to her. But, then, she was entitled for being appointed as a Headmistress in a Project School. Accordingly, in my opinion, the substantive appointment of respondent No. 3 has to be deemed as one in the cadre of Headmaster/Headmistress in the Project Schools and her posting in the present school will be deemed to be on deputation only. 9. In the above view of the matter and subject to the clarification set out as above, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as such and the writ application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. S.B.Sinha, J. 10 I agree