ORDER : 1. Kiran Kumari filed W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012 which was allowed by the writ Court by an order dated 22nd June 2016. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court, W.P. (S) No. 3509 of 2013 filed by Pusplata Kumari was allowed by an order dated 4th December 2017. 3. The State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the aforesaid orders passed by the writ Court by filing LPA No. 269 of 2018 against the orders dated 4th December 2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3509 of 2013 and LPA No. 542 of 2016 challenging the order dated 22nd June 2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012. 4. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the aforesaid orders passed by the writ Court on the ground that no sanctity to the appointments made in contravention of the extant rules, violating the reservation policy and ignoring the maximum age for appointment can be attached to the appointments of Kiran Kumari and Pusplata Kumari. 5. In W.P. (S) No. 3509 of 2013, the writ Court passed the following order: “15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration since the impugned order in case of one Kiran Kumari has already been quashed and set aside and also in view of the fact that the present petitioner is standing at the same footage, the order passed in case of petitioner dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-12) is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the quashment of the impugned order dated 12.11.2013 the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary from 27.07.2008 i.e. from the date of joining and also for fixation of current salary. 16. Needless to say that as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already passed an order regarding payment of arrears with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date when the salary fell due, this Court is also inclined to pass the same order and as such in case of the petitioner also she is entitled for arrears of salary with interest @ 10% p.a. All consequential benefits including the arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months. 17. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed.” 6. 17. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed.” 6. In W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012, the writ Court passed the following order: “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.” 7. At the outset, we may indicate that in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 194 of 2018 the State of Jharkhand made a statement that the writ Court's order was fully complied and on such statement made on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Contempt Case (Civil) No. 194 of 2018 was disposed of. 8. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned GA-II submits that the order passed by the Director, Primary Education is based on the materials on record and while so there can be no dispute on facts that Kiran Kumari and Pusplata Kumari were appointed against reserved vacancies; Pusplata Kumari on the date of appointment crossed the age of 42 years and the appointments were made in excess of the sanctioned vacancies. 9. 9. To lay support to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned GA-II refers to the enquiry report produced in LPA No. 269 of 2018 vide Annexure-4 at Page-136. 10. An advertisement inviting applications for appointment of Headmaster and Assistant Teachers in B.P.M. Middle School, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur was issued on 4th July 2006. Pursuant thereof, Kiran Kumari and Pusplata Kumari appeared in the written test held on 22nd July 2008 and they were called for interview vide letter dated 28th July 2008. There is no dispute that Kiran Kumari and Pusplata Kumari were selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and a communication in this regard was issued to them vide letter dated 25th August 2008. 11. Kiran Kumari came to this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1712 of 2010 seeking a direction for payment of salary and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director, Primary Education to deal with her representation. She challenged the order dated 13th July 2012 which was passed by the Director, Primary Education in compliance of the order dated 14th December 2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1712 of 2010. The aforesaid order dated 13th July 2012 was quashed by the writ Court by an order dated 22nd June 2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012. As noticed above, W.P. (S) No. 3509 of 2013 was allowed in the terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012. 12. Before the writ Court, the objections raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand were as regards appointment in excess to sanctioned post, violation of reservation rules and expiry of the panel. These objections were rejected by the writ Court by an elaborate order passed in W.P. (S) No. 5295 of 2012. 13. B.P.M. Middle School, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur is a minority-aided school. In the light of the constitutional protections granted to the minority institutions under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that the State cannot insist upon observance of its reservation policy in the minority-aided schools. This is also not the law that in the matters of appointment of teachers who are duly qualified the State shall have the last words. 14. In The Ahmedabad St. This is also not the law that in the matters of appointment of teachers who are duly qualified the State shall have the last words. 14. In The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (1974) 1 SCC 717 , it was held that once a teacher possessing the requisite qualifications was selected by the minority institution, the State would have no right to veto the selection of teacher. 15. The objection raised by the State of Jharkhand on the ground that the appointments were made contrary to the reservation rules was, therefore, rightly rejected by the writ Court. There is also no dispute that Kiran Kumari and Pusplata Kumari were invited for interview on 11th August 2008 and within one month appointment letters were issued to them. On such facts, the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand that appointment of these two persons from the panel which has expired is untenable. As regards age of Pusplata Kumari, our attention has been drawn to the Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002, whereunder the maximum age for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher for the women candidate has been raised to 43 years. 16. This also is necessary to record that by a detailed order running into 8 pages, the Hon'ble DB-I vide order dated 30th October 2018 dismissed the application for stay filed through I.A. No. 4663 of 2018. On a glance at the order dated 30th October 2018, we observe that the exception taken by the State of Jharkhand to the writ Court's order was considered and rejected with elaborate reasonings, and the said order was not challenged by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by virtue of the writ Court's order the respondent-teachers have continued in service - now, for about 14 years. Even otherwise also we do not find any illegality in the appointment of the respondent-teachers on the post of Assistant Teacher; atleast we are not shown any such ground. 17. The above being the state of affairs, we do not find any ground for disagreement with the writ Court's order and, accordingly, LPA No. 269 of 2018 and LPA No. 542 of 2016 are dismissed. 18. I.A. No. 8236 of 2017 (in LPA No. 542 of 2016) stands disposed of.