JUDGMENT : Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Memo No. 8808 dated 29.12.2012 whereby the services approved by Memo No. 1743 dated 27.05.2008, has been withdrawn on the ground of letter no. 709 dated 04.03.1993 and for direction upon the respondents to release the withheld salary to the petitioner. 3. As per the pleading, the petitioner was applicant for Assistant Teacher in Bethesada Girls Middle School. Admittedly, this is a minority institution. The said institution is in existence w.e.f. 24.10.1978 on the said status. 4. Sixteen posts have been sanctioned vide letter dated 08.04.2004. The advertisement has been issued for appointment of teacher against the vacant and sanctioned posts vide advertisement dated 23.01.2007 in which the petitioner has applied and participated and selected by the management. His appointment has been approved by the D.E.O. Subsequently, pay fixation has been made and accordingly the salary has been released to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has joined the post on 02.04.2007 and salary has been released till February, 2010. Suddenly, when the matter went before Director for fixation of the revised pay it has been noticed by the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner has been made contrary to the letter dated 04.03.1993, wherein stipulation is that in the selection committee one of the representative of the state must remain present. Thus, the dispute surfaced and the present writ petition has been filed. 6. A detail counter affidavit has been filed wherein a stand has been taken referring to letter no. 709 dated 04.03.1993 that in the selection process one of the representative of the State must remain present. Since in the present case no representative was present and as such it is in violation of mandatory condition. Accordingly the appointment is per se illegal and this way, the impugned order has been justified. 7. Heard the counsels for the parties. 8. From the pleading and circular, it appears that appointments in a minority school is made by the Managing Committee itself. Managing Committee has to follow the mandate of Article-14. The appointment can be made only through open advertisement and from the eligible candidates. 9. Since in the present case, advertisement has been issued and the petitioner is eligible and as such this dispute is not involved in the present case. 10. Managing Committee has to follow the mandate of Article-14. The appointment can be made only through open advertisement and from the eligible candidates. 9. Since in the present case, advertisement has been issued and the petitioner is eligible and as such this dispute is not involved in the present case. 10. In the present case, the only dispute is the presence of government representative. The circular dated 04.03.1993 which is relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^fo|ky; izca/k lfefr ds }kjk fjDr inksa dks foKkfir djkdj dsoy izf'kf{kr mEehnokjksa ls vkosnu&i= izkIr fd;k tk,A lfefr esa fo|ky; ds fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ;kuh {ks=h; f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh@iz[kaM f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh dks f'k{kk foHkkx ds izfrfuf/k ds :i esa vo'; j[kk tk,A es/kk lwph rS;kj dh tk, rFkk ojh;rk ds dze ls gh fu;qfDr dh tk,A fu;qfDr ds le; vkj{k.k fu;eksa dk Hkh vuqikyu fd;k tk,A fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dh lsok vuqeksnu ds laca/k esa foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 2501 fnukad 31-12-82 rFkk foHkkxh; i=kad 1626 fnukad 21-7-83 esa fufgr vkns'k dk;Zjr jgsaxsA f'k{kdksa ds lsok vuqeksnuksijkUr fofgr&izi= esa osru fu/kkZj.k l{ke ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk djus ds mijkUr funs'kd ¼izk0 f'k0½ dh lgefr izkIr dj gh Hkqxrku izkjaHk dh tk,xhA** 11. This circular has been further clarified vide resolution dated 28.02.2011. Clause “Ka” is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^¼d½ foHkkxh; i=kad 709 fnukad 04-03-93 ds vuqlkj fo|ky; izca/k lfefr ds }kjk fjDr inksa dks foKkfir djkdj fu;qfDr djus dk izko/kku vafdr fd;k x;k gSA i= esa ;g Hkh mYys[k gS fd fo|ky; ds izca/k lfefr }kjk fu;qfDr gksus ij fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk fd;k tk;sxk rFkk osru fu/kkZj.k izi= ij funs'kd] izkFkfed f'k{kk dh lgefr ds mijkUr gh osru Hkqxrku izkjaHk fd;k tk;sxkA** 12. From mere perusal of the above circular, it is evident that the presence of the representative of the State government is not mandatory, rather the government before giving approval has to ensure itself that the proper procedure has been followed i.e. proper advertisement was there and the person selected in fair manner and is eligible for the post. 13. From mere perusal of the above circular, it is evident that the presence of the representative of the State government is not mandatory, rather the government before giving approval has to ensure itself that the proper procedure has been followed i.e. proper advertisement was there and the person selected in fair manner and is eligible for the post. 13. In the fact of the present case, it has been pleaded by the petitioner referring to the letter of the D.E.O. (Annexure-13) dated 19.09.2011 wherein it has been stated by the District Education Officer that one Smt. Babita Devi has been deputed for the said purpose but she has neither produced the authorisation letter nor she has signed the proceeding of the selection process. The said fact has not been dealt in the impugned order but it has been dealt in the counter affidavit. 14. In counter affidavit a stand has been taken that Babita Devi was not authorised by D.E.O. but nothing has been said about letter dated 19.09.2011 issued by D.E.O. Further, it has been stated that Babita Devi is not a teacher and as per rule, only Range Education Officer can be authorised to remain present. 15. The above submission of the State is not acceptable for the reason that the service of the petitioner has been approved by the D.E.O. which has been authorised to supervise the entire selection process. No lacunae has been pointed out in the selection process save and accept the non-presence of the representative of the State. 16. The joining of the petitioner has been accepted by the institution approved by the D.E.O. and salary has also been released. Acceptance of the joining is 02.04.2007 and the salary has been paid till February, 2010. Para-7 of the Judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 224 in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors. vs. State of W.B. and Ors. is quoted hereinbelow:- “7. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A. Pai (SCC at p. 551, para 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A. Pai (SCC at p. 551, para 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. The State can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. Under the university Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had laid down qualifications to a teaching post in a university by passing Regulations. As per these Regulations UGC conducts National Eligibility Test (NET) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has also authorised accredited States to conduct State-Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who has qualified NET or SLET will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. This is the required basic qualification for a teacher. The petitioners’ right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of their choice among the NET-/SLET-qualified candidates.” 17. From mere perusal of the above mandate of the Apex Court, it is clear that the State Government is only competent to see the procedure and eligibility of the candidates. Suitability of the candidate cannot be judged by the State Government. Suitability of candidate has to be adjudicated and judged by the Managing Committee. Thus the presence of the representative of the State is only for the purpose of seeing the procedural factor and not the suitability of the candidate. 18. In the present case, there is no averment or plea that any procedural requirement has been infracted rather advertisement and the eligibility of the petitioner is not in question. Suitability of the candidate cannot be questioned or looked into by the State Government Authority. Thus, the mere allegation of non-presence of State representative, the selection process cannot be declared illegal. 19. In view of above discussion and the judicial pronouncement, this Court finds that impugned order dated 29.12.2012 is illegal and contrary to the law and accordingly the same is, hereby, set aside. 20. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period she has worked. 21. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.