ANANDA SEN, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and respondent nos. 6 and 7.
(2.) The B.M.P. Middle 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 litigation's between the parties.;