JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Government Advocate appears for the Respondents 3 and 4. The Respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Advocate. The Respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. Haulianthanga. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure 8-A) issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Sesih Border High School (hereinafter referred to as "the School"), whereby her service as a Grade-IV staff of the School was terminated. The Petitioner also challenges the appointment of Respondent No. 2 in the Grade-IV post earlier held by the Petitioner. 3. The School in question was established in the year 1992 and was brought under the Grants-in-Aid system w.e.f 1st April 2008 on the strength of the Notification 12.6.2008 issued by the Mizoram Government. After the Notification dated 12.6.2008 issued under the Adhoc Recurring Grants-in-Aid for General Maintenance of Schools Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the Managing Committee of the School by order dated 23.6.2008 appointed the Petitioner in Grade-IV post of the School w.e.f. 1.4.2008. By office order dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure 3-A) the District Education Officer approved the appointment given by the School Managing Committee. 4. The Respondent No. 2 claims a right to the Grade-IV post in the School on the grounds that his family had donated the land over which the School was established. It is further claimed by the Respondent No. 2 that his father was appointed in the School in the year 1992 but was unceremoniously replaced in the Grade-IV post by the Petitioner in the year 2003, when the husband of the Petitioner assumed charge as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School. 5. The claim of the Respondent No. 2 for appointment to a vacancy in the School as a land donar is not supported by any law or policy of the Government, nor there is anything in the records of the School to show that any such commitment was given to the family of the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner on the contrary claims that the School was constructed on Government land earlier intended for construction of an Inspection Bungalow and no private land donation was involved in construction of the School. The Petitioner on the contrary claims that the School was constructed on Government land earlier intended for construction of an Inspection Bungalow and no private land donation was involved in construction of the School. The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 advance their rival contentions on the basis of self serving statements, given by different village council chairman of different periods and statements given by village elders. But no official record is produced in Court by either of the parties to confirm their rival claims. 6. Appointment to non-teaching posts in schools receiving Grants-in-Aid is required to be made by the Managing Committee under Rule 4(xi) of the Rules. It is also provided under Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 4 that the pre-existing staffs when the school is brought under the Grants-in-Aid system, only if assessed to be unsuitable through a screening process, should be weeded out of service. 7. While there is some controversy as to the appointment of the Petitioner in the School in the year 2003 and appointment of the father of the Respondent No. 2 in the year 1992, the appointment of the Petitioner given by the Managing Committee of the School on 29.3.2008 is not in dispute. Although there is no requirement in law for approval to appointment made by the school's Managing Committee, the approval accorded to the Petitioner's appointment by the District Education Officer, Champhai, by his office order dated 28.8.2008 definitely confirms the appointment given to the Petitioner in the year 2008 by the Managing Committee of the School and that this was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4(xi) of the Rules. 8. The contesting Respondents however challenge the said appointment in the year 2008 by contending that the appointment was not preceded by any advertisement and the Petitioner was undeservedly given appointment to the post where only the Respondent No. 2 had a legitimate claim. For pre-existing staffs of the pre Grants-in-Aid stage, the appointments are to be made on the basis of screening under Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 4 of the Rules and advertisement is not a sine qua non for adjusting the services of the pre-existing staffs. 9. For pre-existing staffs of the pre Grants-in-Aid stage, the appointments are to be made on the basis of screening under Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 4 of the Rules and advertisement is not a sine qua non for adjusting the services of the pre-existing staffs. 9. In so far as the decision to terminate the Petitioner's service is concerned, it is seen from the resolution of the Managing Committee of the School adopted on 5th February 2010 that the said resolution was passed on orders of the higher authority. Furthermore although it was resolved to fill up the resultant vacancy after issuance of an advertisement, but as can be seen from the stand taken by the Managing Committee, they are committed to given appointment to the Respondent No. 2 and the advertisement in the context of the said commitment is simply an empty formality and was not meant to generate competition amongst aspiring candidates. 10. Although the School Managing Committee is the competent authority under the Rules to make appointment and the Petitioner was appointed by the competent authority, yet at the direction of unnamed higher authority, a Resolution was adopted by the Managing Committee on 5th February 2010 to terminate the service of the Petitioner. When the decision of the Appointing Authority is influenced by extraneous pressure and service of the Petitioner has been terminated on the basis of such pressure, this Court is left with no choice but to declare that the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained in law. 11. Furthermore the reasons given for termination i.e. non-advertisement is also considered to be irrelevant, in the context of the screening process envisaged under Rule 4(ix) of the Rules. 12. No convincing materials has been produced by the Respondents to show that the School was actually built on private land donated by the family of the Respondent No. 2 and that there was a commitment to give appointment in the School, to a member of the land donar's family. Moreover the Respondent No. 2 or his father, never challenged the latter's alleged replacement in the year 2003 and nor they challenged the regular appointment given by the school Managing Committee to the Petitioner in the year 2008. Accordingly I see no enforceable right in favor of the Respondent No. 2, to claim appointment to a Grade-IV vacancy in the School. 13. Accordingly I see no enforceable right in favor of the Respondent No. 2, to claim appointment to a Grade-IV vacancy in the School. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's impugned termination is held to be unsustainable in law. Consequently, the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 in the resultant vacancy is also interfered with. Since a portion of the salary of the Petitioner is withheld, the Respondents are directed to release her arrear and current salaries immediately. 14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly without any order on cost. Petition allowed.