JUDGMENT : 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. 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 correctly not approved her appointment. 6. The counsel appearing for the Managing Committee by filing counter affidavit has supported the appointment. 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 correctly not approved her appointment. 6. The counsel appearing for the Managing Committee by filing counter affidavit has supported the appointment. It has stated that an advertisement was published inviting applications from all eligible candidates and this petitioner is one of them, who was selected after completion of the processes. It has been further submitted that the Managing Committee had decided to fill up the vacant post of the Assistant Teacher and they have stated that there were three vacant posts of Assistant Teacher. Since, only two persons were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed beyond the sanctioned vacant posts and there is no illegality in the process. It was submitted that the Managing Committee had powers to make the appointment. Lastly it has been mentioned that the action of the State in not approving the appointment of this petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. 7. Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after a proper and valid advertisement, the posts of Assistant Teacher and Headmaster was sought to be filled up. The petitioner after going through the entire selection process was selected and appointment letter was issued to her on 25.08.2008. After she was appointed, till date, she is functioning as an Assistant Teacher. He submits that in fact the appointment was also provisionally approved vide letter dated 21.11.2008 by the State Authorities. He further submits that only when she started demanding her salary, the impugned order was passed with malafide intention to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate right. He contends that there is no violation of any Rules. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that one year has lapsed since preparation of the penal and the petitioner was appointed beyond said period of one year. The interview was held on 11.08.2008 and the appointment was done on 25.08.2008 which was within the period of 14 days, thus, it is quite clear that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents that the appointment was made beyond one year from the date of the preparation of the panel is absolutely misconceived. The interview was held on 11.08.2008 and the appointment was done on 25.08.2008 which was within the period of 14 days, thus, it is quite clear that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents that the appointment was made beyond one year from the date of the preparation of the panel is absolutely misconceived. He further submits that so far as the embargo imposed by the District Superintendent of Education in respect of the appointment is concerned, is not for the post of Assistant Teacher, but for the post of Headmaster. Since the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher, the embargo will not be applicable to the appointment of the petitioner which is for the post of Assistant Teacher. Admittedly, petitioner has been appointed against vacant and sanctioned posts, so non-mentioning of the required number of vacant post in the advertisement is of no consequence. He submits that required permission was taken by the School Authorities before filling up the said posts, which is apparent from the letter dated 10.06.2006 issued by the District Superintendent of Education addressed to the Secretary of the School. He further submits that the finding given by the State Authorities in the impugned order that the Governing Body was not properly constituted is baseless. He lastly submits that the entire action of the State is illegal including the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside and appropriate direction be given to the State to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the State argues that the impugned order is absolutely justified. He submits that in fact the appointment of the petitioner was made beyond one year from the date of the advertisement and thus, it was beyond the time limit prescribed. Since, she was appointed beyond one year from the date of advertisement, her appointment was illegal. Further he submits that the non-mentioning of the vacant post in the advertisement goes to the root of appointment. He further submits that before filling up of the said post, since there was embargo, permission should have been taken by the Governing Body of the School, as permission was not taken to fill up the post, the entire selection process is vitiated. He further submits that before filling up of the said post, since there was embargo, permission should have been taken by the Governing Body of the School, as permission was not taken to fill up the post, the entire selection process is vitiated. He submits that during enquiry, it was found that there was an interpolation in the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body which creates doubt in respect of appointment of the petitioner. He lastly submits that the cumulative effect of all the latches renders the appointment illegal, thus it has been rightly not approved. 9. Counsel for the Governing Body argues that after following proper procedure, the petitioner was appointed. He further submits that the Governing Body which initiated the process of appointment was duly constituted Governing Body and there was no complain about functioning or constitution of the same. He further submits that appropriate approval was taken from the authority concerned for filling up of the post and in fact the Government at one point of time had provisionally approved the appointment of the petitioner but suddenly without any valid reasons have rejected the appointment. He further submits that the letter, which the State is relying upon in respect of reservation, does not apply in the Minority Institutions like that of the petitioner. 10. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the records, I find that an advertisement was issued on 04.07.2006 for appointment of Headmaster and Assistant Teacher. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and she faced written test and after qualifying the written test, she faced interview on 11.08.2008, thereafter, she was appointed vide appointment letter dated 25.08.1998. The petitioner worked and is still working. There was no complaint against the petitioner. I also found that the appointment was provisionally approved, but her salary was not paid. When the salary was not paid, she approached this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1712 of 2010 which was disposed of on 14th December, 2011. After disposal of the case, the petitioner's application was considered and ultimately the same was rejected. The advertisement was published on 04.07.2006, but the interview of the candidates, after written test was held on 11.08.2008. The appointment letter was handed over on 25.08.2008 within a period of 14 days from the date of her interview. After disposal of the case, the petitioner's application was considered and ultimately the same was rejected. The advertisement was published on 04.07.2006, but the interview of the candidates, after written test was held on 11.08.2008. The appointment letter was handed over on 25.08.2008 within a period of 14 days from the date of her interview. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to when the panel was prepared, but from the dates mentioned above, it was prepared definitely after 11.08.2008. Much reliance has been placed on Rule 9 K of the Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rule of 2009. The said Rule 9 provides for preparation of a panel and provides that appointment has to be made and the copy of panel has to be received by the Director Primary Education, which will be valid for one year. Nowhere in the said provision, it is mentioned that appointment has to be made within one year from the date of advertisement. Since there is no provision for making appointment with in one year from the date of advertisement, I hold that the contention in that respect made by the State is not correct and the same cannot be accepted. 11. The another ground taken by the State is that the vacancy position was not mentioned in the advertisement. It is correct that the position of vacancies is not mentioned in the advertisement, but it cannot be lost sight of that it is an admitted case of all the parties that there were three vacant posts of Assistant Teacher. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed against the vacant post. It is not the case of the State that appointment was made beyond the sanctioned and vacant posts. That being so, non-reflecting vacancy position in the advertisement is not fatal. On this admitted fact objection raised by the State is a frivolous. 12. The ground taken by the State that there was a stay order in respect of appointment and thus without taking permission from the authorities, the post of Assistant Teacher was filled up, also cannot be accepted by this Court. The letter dated 03.10.2006, which is relied upon nowhere suggests that the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher has to be stopped. The letter dated 03.10.2006, which is relied upon nowhere suggests that the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher has to be stopped. From perusal of the entire letter, it is apparent that the same only relates to the appointment of the headmaster and not in respect of Assistant Teacher. Further, on perusal of the letter dated 10.06.2006 written by the District Superintendent Education, addressed to the Secretary BPM Middle School, (School in question), it is quite clear that permission was given by the District Superintendent of Education himself to fill up the vacant post of Assistant Teacher. The said letter clearly suggests that there are three vacant posts of Assistant Teacher, which needed to be filled up and specific direction was given to fill up the said posts in terms of the direction of the District Superintendent of Education. This letter clearly suggests that on the direction of the State, the posts of Assistant Teacher had to be filled up. Since a direction was given by the State to fill up the vacancy, it is not fair on part of the State to say that the required permission was not taken from the District Authority before filling the vacancy. Thus, the objection of the State on this count is also bad. So far the ground of interpolation in the minutes of the meeting is concerned, the same has got no relevance. It is admitted that the petitioner was not appointed beyond the sanction post, in fact there were three sanctioned, vacant posts which were to be filled up and petitioner was appointed against one of them. In relation to the ground taken by the State that the Managing Committee was not properly constituted till the end of 1995 is not tenable. The Secretary of the School was directed to fill up the post by the District Superintendent of Education vide letter dated 10.06.2006. While issuing the letter dated 10.06.2006, District Superintendent of Education did not take the plea that the Governing Body is not constituted properly. Thus this plea cannot be accepted at this stage when in fact the appointment has been made as per the direction of the District Superintendent of Education and the Secretary only followed the said direction. If the Governing Body was not properly constituted then it was not expected from the authorities to direct the said Body to go ahead with the appointment. If the Governing Body was not properly constituted then it was not expected from the authorities to direct the said Body to go ahead with the appointment. Further counsel for the Governing Body also denied the said allegation. Thus, this ground taken by the State is also not tenable. 13. The objection to the roster of reservation is concerned also cannot be accepted. Neither in the impugned order nor in the counter affidavit, the State has demonstrated as to how the roster was not followed. They have also not refuted the submission made by the Governing Body that the said letter was not applicable so far the Minority Institutions is concerned. Thus, I find that the said objection are without any basis. 14. The impugned order was passed by the State on the basis of an enquiry report. The enquiry report led to the conclusion, which is reflected in the impugned order. Since, each of the ground and the objections taken by the State cannot be sustained as held in this order, the impugned order dated 13th July, 2003 is absolutely bad. The appointment of the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either illegal or irregular. The petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post after completion of all the formalities and there is no violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the observations made above, the impugned order dated 13th July, 2003 is set aside. Further, I find that the appointment of the petitioner was provisionally approved. There was a direction from the State to fill up the said posts, as such, I direct the respondents to immediately issue an order of approval of the services of the petitioner. Further a direction is given to pass necessary consequential order and to see that the salary of the petitioner including the arrears be paid within a period of three month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrear will be paid to the petitioner which will bear an interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the salary fell due. 16. This writ petition thus stands allowed.