JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by learned counsel Mr. A. Arunkumar, and Mr. N. Umkanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 as well as respondent No.5 and also Mr. K. Jagat, learned G.A appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. Since the issues are interlinked to each other both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order. 3. Laii High School (Aided) was established in the year 1975 and was recognized by the Government of Manipur as an Aided High School on 01.12.1978 and thereby school used to have grant-in-aid from the State Government. At the relevant point of time that is in the year 1999 five posts of teachers were approved whereas four posts of teachers were unapproved besides, non-teaching staffs. Case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that he had been appointed against the unapproved post of graduate science teacher vide order dated 02.02.1998 by the Secretary Laii Adided School Senapati. Since the date of appointment the petitioner were discharging his duties to the satisfaction of authority. Thereafter, it happened so that one Shri H. Radhacharan Singh working on post of approved teacher and was in-charge Headmaster of the school tendered his resignation as a result of which one post of approved teacher fell vacant. Since the petitioner had rendered services for 16 long years, he was expecting that he would be appointed as approved teacher but to the utter surprise of the petitioner came to know that the Managing Committee has decided to fill up the vacancy not from amongst the unapproved teachers but from fresh candidate and in that event the petitioner did file a writ application before the Gauhati High Court bearing number W.P© No.1305 of 2003 praying therein to direct the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner against the available vacant post of approved teacher which fell vacant on account of resignation being tendered by Shri Radhacharan Singh on 08.09.2003. This Court passed an interim order to the effect that the respondent authority shall not fill up the post of approved teacher without first considering the case of the unapproved teacher like the petitioner. The said order was communicated to the authority. This Court passed an interim order to the effect that the respondent authority shall not fill up the post of approved teacher without first considering the case of the unapproved teacher like the petitioner. The said order was communicated to the authority. In spite of that, Zonal Selection Committee took up the matter relating to appointment of a teacher against the vacant post of approved teacher. The Committee recommended the name of the respondent No.5 for being appointed on the said post on 30.08.2003. Pursuant to that respondent No.5 being a Secretary of the said school himself issued an order on 01.09.2003 appointing himself as Arts Graduate Teacher. Being aggrieved with the order a writ application bearing number W.P© No.120 of 2004 has been filed. 4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5, at the relevant point of time happened to be the Secretary of the School and thereby his appointment on the post of approved teacher is in contravention of Rule 8 of the Manipur Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools (Managing Committee) Rules 1975 which reads as follows: “Rule 8: No member of the Managing Committee who is not a member of the teacher staff shall apply for appointment under the Managing Committee without first resigning his membership.” 5. By referring to the said Rule, learned senior counsel by drawing attention to annexure-A/1 to the writ application bearing number W.P© No.1305 of 2003 submits that name of the respondent No.5 does not find mentioned in the list of the unapproved teacher and thereby his appointment as teacher is certainly in contravention of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules. 6. On the other hand, case of the respondent No.5 as has been made out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as respondent No.5 is that on 17.07.2002 one teacher namely, Shri H. Radhacharan Singh, who also happened to be the Headmaster of the school tendered his resignation. Upon tendering his resignation the respondent No.5 submitted an application to appoint him as an approved teacher. His case was considered in the meeting of the Committee held on 09.10.2002 whereby name of respondent No.5 was recommended to be appointed as unapproved teacher w.e.f. 09.10.2000. Upon tendering his resignation the respondent No.5 submitted an application to appoint him as an approved teacher. His case was considered in the meeting of the Committee held on 09.10.2002 whereby name of respondent No.5 was recommended to be appointed as unapproved teacher w.e.f. 09.10.2000. Pursuant to the said recommendation an order was passed by the Secretary of the school on 16.10.2000 whereby respondent No.5 was appointed as unapproved teacher. Subsequently, Zonal Selection Committee in its meeting dated 30.08.2003 resolved to appoint the respondent No.5 as approved teacher of the said school. Pursuant to that recommendation, petitioner issued a letter in the capacity of Secretary for his appointment as approved teacher of the school. Further case is that when the petitioner was found absent for 7 seven long years, his service was terminated on 26.10.2000 and thereby he even ceased to be an unapproved teacher of the school w.e.f. 26.10.2000. In reply to the statement made in the counter affidavit, statements have been made on behalf of the petitioner that on 08.09.2003, this Court had passed an interim order whereby direction had been given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of approved teacher. In order to frustrate the order passed by this Court, the respondent No.5 has come with a backdated letter taking stand that the DPC in its meeting held on 30.08.2003 made a recommendation for appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of approved teacher. 7. Thus, the first and foremost point for consideration is as to why respondent No.5 was appointed as approved teacher of the said school in contravention of Rule 8 of the Manipur Aided High and Higher Secondary Schools (Managing Committee) Rules 1975. The said Rule reads as follows: “No member of the Managing Committee who is not a member of the teacher staff shall apply for appointment under the Managing Committee without first resigning his membership.” 8. From its perusal, it is evident that a member of the committee is not eligible to be appointed as teacher so long he remains a member of the committee. However, that embargo is not operative against a member of the Managing Committee who happens to be the teacher. From its perusal, it is evident that a member of the committee is not eligible to be appointed as teacher so long he remains a member of the committee. However, that embargo is not operative against a member of the Managing Committee who happens to be the teacher. In this case, the stand which has been taken on behalf of the respondent 5 is that when the then Headmaster, namely H. Radhacharan Singh had tendered his resignation on 17.07.2000, respondent No.5 submitted an application for being appointed as an unapproved teacher. That application was considered by the Committee and it was resolved on 09.10.2000 to appoint him as an unapproved teacher and thereby it is evident that the respondent No.5, who was Secretary of the Managing Committee was also a teacher, though unapproved teacher, and thereby embargo put under Rules 8 of the said Rules would not be applicable in case of respondent No.5 for being appointed as teacher. Subsequently Zonal Selection Committee in its meeting dated 30.08.2003, which is prior to 08.09.2003 when the order was passed by this Court, did resolve to appoint respondent No.5 as approved teacher. However, an attempt was made to show that the said resolution was antedated but it could not be proved. Thus, I do find that appointment of respondent No.5 is never in contravention of Rule 8 of the said Rules. 9. Further, it be recorded that according to the case of the respondents when the petitioner was found absent for 7 long years, he was asked to submit his show cause as to why not his services be terminated but no response was received and thereby services of the petitioner was terminated vide termination order dated 26.10.2000 which order was communicated to the petitioner but according to the petitioner he never received such letter and in such event plea has been taken that the said termination order is an antedated document which according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gets established that even after the year 2000 the petitioner was appointed as examiner. Even if such letter issued by Board of Secondary Education appointing the petitioner as examiner is there that can not be a proof for demolishing the case of respondent that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in the year 2000 for simple reason that Board may have issued such letter as the petitioner may be in panel of examiner of the Board who may not have been intimated about the termination of the service of the petitioner. Accordingly, I do find that the petitioner has utterly failed in establishing that the order under which services of the petitioner was terminated in antedated piece of document. Thus, I do not find any merit in these two writ applications and hence, it is dismissed.