JUDGEMENT Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 2. The prayer made in this writ application reads as follows: "A writ in. the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground due to death of his father in-harness. A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction directing the District Compassionate Committee, Jehanabad to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground." 3. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Dr. Zahir Ahsan High School, Dhodha, Gaya (Now Jehanabad) (hereinafter referred to as the School) by its Managing Committee of the School and since, the aforesaid School is a recognized minority declared and aided school by the State Government which made his father to also receive monthly salary from the grant in aid released by the State Government, the petitioner on account of death of his father in-harness would be entitled for his being considered for compassionate appointment in any capacity in the said School. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that despite filing of his application for compassionate appointment, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee of Jehanabad has not taken a decision and as such he was left with no other alternative but to move this Court for a direction to the Respondents for his appointment on compassionate ground. 4. In this context, the main plank of submission of Mr. Hussain is based on a Government Resolution No. 237 dated 20.2.1990 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application which according to him would also entitle the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in recognized minority aided school. 5. Learned counsel for the State with the help of the counter affidavit filed by him would submit that the Government resolution dated 5.10.1991, laying down the policy of compassionate appointment is meant only for Government servants and their dependents and since, the father of the petitioner was not a Government servant, the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Learned counsel for the State with the help of the counter affidavit filed by him would submit that the Government resolution dated 5.10.1991, laying down the policy of compassionate appointment is meant only for Government servants and their dependents and since, the father of the petitioner was not a Government servant, the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. In this regard, he has also placed reliance on the communication of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department dated 3.4.2008, wherein it has been held that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground in a recognized minority aided school and any appointment in such recognized minority aided school can be made only by the Managing Committee of the School in which the offices of the State Government cannot play any role. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned rival contentions, the first issue would be as to whether a direction can be issued by this Court for considering the case of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in a recognized minority aided school? As would be clear from the policy of the Government dated 5.10.1991, it is exclusively meant for Government servants and their dependents. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was not a Government servant and when in the writ application, it has also been clearly admitted by the petitioner himself that the father of the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School on 28.9.1977, it becomes more than clear that the Government or its officials including the District Compassionate Appointment Committee will have no role to play in facilitating much less appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground in the aforementioned recognized minority aided school. 7. 7. If the said Government policy dated ,5.10.1991, in fact is carefully examined, it would be self-evident that it applies only to the Government servant, inasmuch as, it has been provided therein that: anMf 3ft 3pf -3 ire 4 ^ ^ tk 3^*hi Pd^Hj^k 3^TT f % 3R iW ^i+id 3 fa$ *K4»iO -&rer 3ft- tj^ ftf ^R TJ?T *K4i|(l ^33i # STlMf 3ft ^f-3 V& gif-4 ^ "^t ^ Ph^i %% -+IP4+ xtf 3ft 3w*fiw 3^ft ir w?m 3 to f¥fa f^RT t fa &$* >"*[ ^ 3?TOR ^ Pd^P+d 3ft" ifcrf 3ft ^ WR Wx\ i^f WH+lfl Wm\ ^m fa H *\{\ jfrffi ^ »jctt1n PdM-4 i^f 3T8^T ^pf-4 ^ "^Nf "^ PH^P=k1 (1) faH^l ^H ft ^3kT[ i- (3T) 3FJ3mrr ^ 3TT«TK ^ frgfar 3H snr fe Tpr w$rfi ^ggr 3^ ^ ft anfgm 3ft st^itpi ffrT f^R3ft ^ gTT^TR "^R Pd-^fed 3ft w ^3nft ti snPsfir 3} ar^Ffa 3^r ^f, 3Tf%f3T%?T ^ft tTSTT ^T 3ft f3^T ""TFft ^fM^T T^ftl ^3? TJ3, ^TCK, ^cft^TT 3TTfc 3ft 3nP?rcf h?T *rrcr *rrWi 00 3T33T"TT 3 > 3TT$m; m rHHPdndd "SfTOfH+diatf 3 > ST^TR ^£ 3?lf?m 3ft Pd^P+d 3ft ^Fft- (i) TJct ^fi ^ft "Teft (ii) 3* (iii) aifaciifed ^ (iv) "55T _^ft fs[«icn "qpft ^ #C feft "C^T ^t ^ ^ "5fM eft ^ft C^r) tfa ^ *rfsw m*tfl ifor "% $ 3?ft "sW ^ %*ft *R*I 1 ^T 3 ^PkcT ^f H, eft ^fen « +ifl ^f ^t Tjcj ^ (underling for emphasis) 8. Thus it be comes clear from the Government policy of compassionate appointment that it is applicable only for the dependents of a Government servant and when the father of the petitioner was admitted an employee of a private school governed and administered by its Managing Committee and thus not a Government servant, there would be no question of his appointment on compassionate ground at least in terms of the Government policy dated 5.10.1991, 9. True it is that the said Government policy was also sought to be enforced in certain other kinds institutions, inasmuch as, in paragraph no. 11 of the same circular dated 5.10.1991 it has been provided that: (ii) T8 Tifara ^ 3r^=rrar tftar-ro 10. True it is that the said Government policy was also sought to be enforced in certain other kinds institutions, inasmuch as, in paragraph no. 11 of the same circular dated 5.10.1991 it has been provided that: (ii) T8 Tifara ^ 3r^=rrar tftar-ro 10. It is however, not in doubt that a recognized minority aided school will not fall in the category of any of the aforementioned specified institutions inasmuch as such a recognized minority aided school is neither a public undertaking nor an autonomous body, authority Corporation or Board nor even a State subsidized institution. A State subsidized institution in fact is only such institution in which the State Government has to meet the entire cost of expenditure of its establishment including payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff whereas in a recognized minority aided school only grant-in-aid for specific purpose confined to payment of salary and other emoluments of its teaching and non-teaching employees has been extended from the funds of the State Government. In the State of Bihar there are only a few State subsidized institution including K.P. Jayaswal Institute or A.N. Sinha Institute. The private Sanskrit Schools, Madarsa and the minority schools though recognized by the Government do not fall in the category of State subsidized institutions. Thus, on the basis of the aforementioned analysis, it can be safely held that the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be enforced, in the recognized minority aided school where the father of the petitioner was working before dying in harness. 11. It has also to be kept in mind that such recognized minority aided school, even when it receives grant-in-aid for payment of salary it does not cease to have its own autonomy and identity in the matter of appointment and/or removal of service of its teaching and non-teaching employees. 11. It has also to be kept in mind that such recognized minority aided school, even when it receives grant-in-aid for payment of salary it does not cease to have its own autonomy and identity in the matter of appointment and/or removal of service of its teaching and non-teaching employees. As a matter of fact in all the recognized minority aided schools the power of appointment in keeping with the requirement under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India has always remained vested in the Managing Committee of the School and merely because the Vidyalaya Sewa Board and the Government and/or its officials have been vested with limited power of approving the services of such teaching employees within the sanctioned number of posts for such school in terms of Section 18 of Bihar Non-Government Schools Taking Over Management and Control Act, 1981 would not mean that the Government and/or its officials can also appoint any employee in the said School. The rights guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India vests complete autonomy in the minority institution and the same cannot be in any way interfered and abrogated by the Government and/or its officers inasmuch the same would be in teeth of provisions made under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Thus, any and every appointment including an appointment on compassionate ground in a recognized minority aided school can only be made by the Managing Committee/Governing Body of the School in which the Government can have no say and consequently the prayer of the petitioner for direction from this Court to the respondent officials of the State Government for directing them to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground must be held to be wholly misconceived both on fact and in law. 12. In this regard it is equally important to note here that the Government policy of compassionate appointment in the Circular dated 5.10.1991 in its clause no. 4 also clarifies that such appointment letter on compassionate ground has to be issued by the appointing authority of the deceased employee as would be evidenced from its following extracts: . 3^T ^FT^FT K "3fsT TJ3 ^ -+! 4 also clarifies that such appointment letter on compassionate ground has to be issued by the appointing authority of the deceased employee as would be evidenced from its following extracts: . 3^T ^FT^FT K "3fsT TJ3 ^ -+! Thus if the whole policy contained in Government Circular dated 5.10.1991 is read aSongwiih She prescribed proforma in Enclosure-1 and its various columns, there would be hardly any scope to hold that despite the appointing authority on any teaching/non-teaching post in recognized minority aided school being only its Managing Committee, any direction can be issued to the officers of the State Government including the Respondents to this writ petition for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. 13. The added emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Government resolution dated 20.2.1990 (Annexure-6) in this regard also appears to be wholly misplaced. The subject of such resolution being itselt as ciear as a day will leave nothing for speculation that it was only issued for giving some financial benefits to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the recognized minority aided school, as had been extended to the teachers in the Government schools. The text of the said resolution in fact reads as follows: it ftrarar/fw&nn ^H#m ^\ ?rf %h wm ^j are factft?r Tff^^f tt^h ^re i ^ %8J37 T£* ftT$p£rcR ^M ^ *H+|{1 ^fc -^ ^ffff STlfc *ft ^fegnatf tf iMifrHdl 31 p > 14. Thus a bare reading of the subject of the aforementioned resolution dated 20.2.1990, would therefore, leave nothing for speculation that it was only meant for extending same and similar financial benefits of Dearness Allowance. House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and City Compensatory allowance in addition to salary and emoluments as being paid to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the Government school. The appointment on compassionate ground however is not contemplated under aforesaid resolution of the State Government dated 20.2.1990. As a matter of fact, the full text of the Government resolution dated 20.2.1990 already quoted above will itself make it clear that the expression We sabhi suvidhayen (% *nft ^ftrerif) in paragraph no. 2, is meant only with regard to also extending the benefit of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance as being paid to the employees of the Government school. 2, is meant only with regard to also extending the benefit of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance as being paid to the employees of the Government school. The resolution dated 20.2.1990, in no view of the matter can be read much less construed to mean that the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground issued by the Personnel Adminstrative Rules Department dated 5.10.1991 was also sought to be extended to the recognized minority aided school by the aforesaid resolution dated 20.2.1990. As noted above the power of appointment and removal in a recognized minority aided school is exclusively in the hands of the Managing Committee that has not been sought taken away in any manner by virtue of the Government resolution dated 20.2.1990. 15. In that view of the matter, the stand taken by learned counsel for the State relying on the communication of Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department dated 3.4.2008; (Annexure-B) reading as follows: " Would itself show that the scheme of compassionate appointment of the Government is not meant for recognized minority aided schools. It is in fact the Managing Committee which alone can appoint its teaching and non-teaching employees on any ground including compassionate ground and in such exercise of appointment in minority schools, the Government and/or its officials cannot do anything and even the limited supervisory power with regard to approval of service of such teaching and non-teaching employees of recognized minority aided school appointed by its Managing Committee and that too only for payment of salary would by no stretch of imagination would make the State Government and/or its officials the appointing authority of teaching and non-teaching employees of the recognized minority aided school. 16. The matter can be examined even from another angle, inasmuch as, there is no dispute that the school in question is a private school and not a State within the meaning of Article 12. The power of appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees in such private school including a minority declared school exclusively lies in the Managing Committee which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This Court therefore, cannot issue direction to such privately managed school nor the Managing Committee of such private school can be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court therefore, cannot issue direction to such privately managed school nor the Managing Committee of such private school can be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter was gone into by this court in the case of Sanjay Sharad V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., relating to another recognized minority aided high school, namely Dayanand High School, Mithapur in C.W.J.C No. 9828 of 2008, wherein this Court by its order dated 6.5.2009 had held as follows: "In the light of aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties the first and foremost question would be as to whether this writ application against an order passed by the Managing Committee of a private and minority declared school is maintainable? Dr. Jha, in order to satisfy this court on the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application would straightway place his reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manmohan Singh Jaitla V/s. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. reported in 1984 (Supplementary) SCC 540. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance placed on the said judgment is wholly misplaced because therein there was a provision for a tribunal against the decision of the Managing Committee and the decision which was taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner exercising power under Section 3 of 1969 Act in respect of the aided school was held to be those of the tribunal. It was in that context the Apex Court had held the writ application to be maintainable as the impugned order was passed by the tribunal. One would fail to understand as to how the said judgment would be of any avail for the facts of the present case wherein a unanimous decision of the Managing Committee of a minority school as communicated through its Secretary is being assailed in a writ application. It is true that the Secretary of the Managing Committee at that point of time was the District Education Officer but nonetheless that decision still would be one of the Managing Committee, which by itself is not an authority much less a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Obviously, the ratio of Manmohan Singh Jaitia case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Dr. Obviously, the ratio of Manmohan Singh Jaitia case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Dr. Jha next referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O,P. Gupta V/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1987(4) SCC 328 . In the opinion of this Court, the reliance placed on the said judgment seems to be wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, that was the case of an Assistant Engineer in Central Public Works Department who was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry and was eventually retired compulsorily. Thus, the said judgment in the case of O.P. Gupta (supra) is not an authority that the decision ot the Managing Committee is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Dr. Jha then placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Francis John V/s. Director of Education & Ors. reported in 1989 (Supplementary)(2) SCC 598. In the opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Francis John (supra) will also be of no assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as, what was held therein was that a writ application against an order of a Government Officer acting under administrative instruction in terms of Rule 74.2 of the Grant- in-aid Code was maintainable. There can be no difficulty in accepting this proposition that if the ultimate decision was taken by the Government or its officer either in terms of statute or even circular, such decision would no longer remain decision of the Managing Committee of the institution and as such, the writ jurisdiction against an order of the Government Officer would be maintainable. Here, there is no such statute prescribing the District Education Officer to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee rather than District Education Officer is one of the members of the Managing Committee of a minority school being the Government representative. Here, there is no such statute prescribing the District Education Officer to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee rather than District Education Officer is one of the members of the Managing Committee of a minority school being the Government representative. Such Managing Committee in fact is comprising of different members and in that view of the matter, merely because at that point of time the District Education Officer was made the Secretary of the Managing Committee and had issued the impugned order in terms of the unanimous decision of the Managing Committee, will not make the decision of the Managing Committee one taken by a Government Officer, it is this aspect of the matter which would make the writ application of the petitioner absolutely distinct and different from one which was decided by the Apex Court in the case of Francis John (supra). As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter that a writ application against a decision of the Managing Committee is not maintainable stands settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur V/s. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors. reported in 1999(1) PLJR 529 wherein this Court after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case d Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. V/s. V.R. Rudani & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 and K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. V/s. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr. reported in 1998 SC 295 had held the teacher of privately managing school even though financially aided by the State Government or a Board cannot maintain the writ application against an order of termination from service passed by the Managing Committee. The Division Bench of this Court for this purpose had relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli V/s. Lakshmi Narain reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 as also in the case of Dipak Kumar Biswas V/s. Director of Public Instruction & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1422 . The aforesaid view of the Division Bench in the case ot Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) has been again reiterated by yet another Division Bench in the case of Trigun Chandra Thakur V/s. State of Bihar and Others, in L.P.A. No. 670 of 1999, disposed of on 21.1.2008. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1422 . The aforesaid view of the Division Bench in the case ot Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) has been again reiterated by yet another Division Bench in the case of Trigun Chandra Thakur V/s. State of Bihar and Others, in L.P.A. No. 670 of 1999, disposed of on 21.1.2008. The law, therefore, having been settled by two Division Bench judgments of this Court on this score, it must be held that the writ petition assailing the impugned order passed by the Managing Committee of a minority school is not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the termination of service of the petitioner cannot even otherwise be faulted with because the specific stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, he was tacking training qualification and as such, was not qualified in terms of the eligibility for holding the post of teacher in a minority school, has not been disputed by filing any rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner has only come out to say that after two years of his appointment, he is said to have become a trained hand. In the opinion of this Court, once this fact is admitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was not trained, his appointment was void ab initio and could not have been cured because the Managing Committee had no power to appoint a teacher in the year, 2000 without his being a trained hand. In fact, it was for this reason that the Vidyalaya Seva Board on the proposal sent by the Managing Committee for approving the appointment of the petitioner had not accorded such approval. Such approval in fact is mandatory in view of Section 18 of the Bihar Arajkiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Prabandh & Diyantran Grahan) Adhiniam. 1981 which under Section 18 lays down that appointment of a teacher in minority school can only be done with the approval of the Vidyalaya Seva Board. Such approval in fact is mandatory in view of Section 18 of the Bihar Arajkiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Prabandh & Diyantran Grahan) Adhiniam. 1981 which under Section 18 lays down that appointment of a teacher in minority school can only be done with the approval of the Vidyalaya Seva Board. Once this fact is admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was never approved by the Vidyalaya Seva Board in a span of almost five years, there would be no difficulty in holding that the appointment of the petitioner even otherwise was unsustainable and as such, the decision taken by the Managing Committee to dispense with the services of such person i.e. the petitioner cannot be faulted with. This Court also must take note of the fact that even when the appointment of the teacher in a minority school has to be made in terms of Section 18 with the approval of the Vidyalaya Seva Board, the payment of salary has to be made against the sanctioned, approved and vacant post. Such payment of salary is being made by the Government and therefore, when the post held by the petitioner was actually that of Suresh Sharma who had earlier been, removed from service in anticipation of approval of the Vidyalaya Seva Board, the post itself did not remain vacant as the Vidyalaya Seva Board did not approve the removal of Sri Suresh Sharma. Consequently, the petitioner could not be given the benefit of payment of salary from the Government Fund as it was Suresh Sharma who had to be reinstated in service. This aspect of the matter has been clearly explained by the successor Secretary of the Managing Committee Sri Prem Nath Rai in his separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5 which also has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. All these matters taken together would, therefore, leave nothing for this court but to hold and declare that the writ application filed by the petitioner basically against the decision of the Managing Committee is not maintainable and the decision of the Managing Committee in fact even on merits does not suffer from any infirmity." 17. All these matters taken together would, therefore, leave nothing for this court but to hold and declare that the writ application filed by the petitioner basically against the decision of the Managing Committee is not maintainable and the decision of the Managing Committee in fact even on merits does not suffer from any infirmity." 17. It would thus be clear that this writ application itself is not maintainable and at least none of the two relief either by way of direction to the respondents of this writ application for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground due to death of the father of the petitioner in- harness or even a direction to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Jehanabad can be given to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 18. The respondents to this writ application being either the Secretary of Human Resources Development Department, Deputy Director, Secondary Education, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, D.M., Jehanabad are not competent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in the school in question which is a private autonomous institution receiving grant-in-aid for payment of salary by way of recognized aided minority school. None of the respondents have any power to make appointment in the school in question. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee is again a creation of the Government policy for appointment on compassionate ground vide circular of the State Government dated 5.10.1991 and it has got no jurisdiction even to consider much less making any recommendation for the dependent of an employee who was not a Government servant. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the recognized minority aided school and thus not a Government servant and therefore, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee can also not exercise its Jurisdiction for considering or recommending the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 19. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.