We are unable to appreciate, much less accept, such an argument. Referring to proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, it is evident that, as soon as there is vacancy, the management is required to communicate with the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad. The vacancy is to be filled in, from the list of surplus persons maintained by the Education officer. This is the first indication of control of the State over the recruitment and appointment of staff, even of private schools. Even on reference to sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, the candidate eligible for appointment and desirous of applying for such post, is required to apply in writing, by giving full details. We are unable to visualise a possibility of deserving candidate knowing about the vacancies in any private schools, unless the school invites applications by advertisement. The persons, who may learn about vacancies without advertisement, may only be kith and kins or those in close contact with the management or at the most staff members. If argument of Advocate Shri Kazi is to be accepted, it will be tantamount to accepting that rule 9 is drafted in such a manner as to promote nepotism, so far as appointments of open cateogry candidates to teaching and non-teaching posts in private schools are concerned. If the argument of Advocate Shri Kazi is to be accepted, Rule 9 will have to be read in a fashion, where reserved category candidates are required to enter the service by competing amongst themselves, but an open category candidate may be in a position to seek an appointment without competing. Legislature could not have intended to prescribe a manner of recruitment which would discriminate between reserved and un-reserved categories in respect of manner in which they can seek appointments. A legislation making it easier for a reserved candidate, may be justified, in view of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. But, a reverse position cannot be justified by any line of argument.
