S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record. 2. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, the respondent No. 4 is an organisation which holds various examinations for regular candi dates including All India/delhi Senior School Certificate Examination. This examination is open to a pupil of an institution affiliated to the Board which pupil has his name submitted to the controller of examinations duly certified by the head of the institution indicating that the pupil concerned satisfies the requisite eligibility criteria prescribed by the Board. The examination held by the Board and the certificate issued on examination pursuant therefore stands recognised by various statutory bodies including the State. 3. Under the scheme of examinations framed by the Board previously a candidate failing in one of the five subjects of external examination could be placed in compartment of that subject provided be/she qualified in all subjects of internal assessment. Such a candidate could reappear at the compartmental examination to be held in July/august and could avail himself of the second chance in March/april next year. However a candidate who did not appear at one or both the chance of the compartment is treated to have failed in the examination. 4. It appears that the Board had also framed a scheme whereunder a candidate who had passed the Senior School certificate examination conducted by the Board could attempt to improve his performance in one subject only at the All India/delhi Senior School Certificate Examination at the compartmental examination to be held in the month of July/august of the same year. A candidate under this scheme who had passed the examination of the Board could reappear for improvement of his performance in one or more subjects in the main examination in the succeeding year subject to the certain condi tion. The benefits of this scheme were not made available after a lapse of one year after passing the examination. 5. It may however, be noticed that according to the scheme referred to above, the candidate who appeared for improvement of performance in full subjects was to be issued only statement of marks reflecting marks obtain ed at the improvement examination in those subjects. 6. 5. It may however, be noticed that according to the scheme referred to above, the candidate who appeared for improvement of performance in full subjects was to be issued only statement of marks reflecting marks obtain ed at the improvement examination in those subjects. 6. The petitioners had appeared in the Senior Secondary School Certi ficate Examination held by the Board referred to hereinabove in the year 1995 and were declared to have passed that examination wherein the petitioner No. 1 secured 51. 8% marks, while the petitioner No. 2 secured 51. 4% marks. It is alleged that in view of the improvement scheme indicated hereinabove, the petitioners did not give much attention to some of the papers. However, on 26-10-1994, the Board had issued a circular informing all concerned that the facility of improvement of performance at the compartmental examination in July/august every year had been withdrawn from the year 1995 clarifying however, that the facility of improvement shall be available at the main examination to be held in the succeeding year in the month of March/april. 7. The petitioners have prayed that a direction be issued requiring the respondents to allow them to appear in the July/august, 1995 compartmental examination for improvement of their performance in the subjects in which they have got less marks. They have also prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26-10-1994 referred to hereinabove. 8. It may be noticed that the State can permit and recognised as well as aid voluntary non-governmental organisation who are prepared to impart education to children. This category of organisation which includes the respondent organisation endeavour to meet the demand of that segment of population who may not wish to have their children educated in State-run schools. The State appears to have granted recognition to the certificates awarded by such private non-governmental organisations on being satisfied that they impart education maintaining the requisite standard which could justify the grant of the certificate. The private educational institution merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people. It is an activity which can be said to be supplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State in this regard. The private educational institution merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people. It is an activity which can be said to be supplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State in this regard. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Unnikrishanan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1993 SCC 645 , no private educational institution can survive or subsist without recogni tion and/or affiliation. The bodies which grant recognition or affiliation are authorities of the State and they can while granting recognition insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure imparting education of requisite standard. 9. Here in the present case, what I find is that the petitioners had been awarded a certificate by the Board placing them in the grade which they merited taking into consideration their performance in the final examination. A certificate recognised by the State has already been issued by the Board in favour of the petitioners. The Board has clarified that even, if the candi date undergoes improvement performance, he will be issued only statement of marks reflecting his/her marks at the improvement examination. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the grade of the examinee in which he stands placed as mentioned in the certificate issued by the Board on the basis of the evaluation of the performance of the examination the final exa mination is altered on the basis of the performance in the examination undergone by the examinee under the scheme of improvement of performance. The improvement scheme thus, appears to be a purely internal arrangement between the examinee and the Board which has nothing to do with the certificate issued on the basis of the evaluation of the performance of the candidate at the first final examination on the basis whereof certificate is issued which certificate is recognised. 10. The improvement scheme thus, appears to be a purely internal arrangement between the examinee and the Board which has nothing to do with the certificate issued on the basis of the evaluation of the performance of the candidate at the first final examination on the basis whereof certificate is issued which certificate is recognised. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Lalji Srivastava v. U. P. Co-operative Bank, reported in 1994 UPLBEC 297 as well as Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ale Ahmad Abidi v. District, Inspector of Schools reported in AIR 1977 All 589 no justifiable ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order, dated 26-10-1994 or for the issuance of mandamus sought for against the Board, the respondent No. 4 which is an autonomous nongovernmental body specially when the petitioners have failed to establish that the respondent organisation had any statutory duty cast upon it which was not being performed or the petitioners were denied any such right which can be said to have any statutory recognition or protection which can furnish a cause of action for a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The other relief which the petitioners have prayed for is that the respondents may take into account the performance of the petitioner in the Senior Secondary School Examination 1993 and may provide her with an appointment order for the post of Commercial Clerk/ticket Collector. This relief obviously pertains to a claim regarding recruitment which in the facts and circumstances of the present case is entertain able by the Tribunal consti tuted under the Administrative Tribunals Act,. 1985 and in view of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the said Act, the petitioners have to approach the said Tribunal in this connection. 12. In view of my conclusions indicated hereinabove, the petitioners are not entitled to. any relief in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .