JUDGMENT 1. -The petitioner was appointed as teacher in the V. V. John Memorial School, Jodhpur on 1-7-95 on a pay of Rs. 2475 per month. Her services were terminated on 11th March, 1998 on account of incompetency in work, very poor English and outrageous insubordination. 2. The petitioner's case is that the order amounts to stigma on the conduct of the petitioner and as it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, there is violation of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Education Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, `the Act of 1989'). It has been averred that though there is Educational Tribunal but appeal to that Tribunal is not an equally efficacious remedy inasmuch as that there is only one Tribunal which is located at Jaipur and the petitioner is not in a position to pursue the matter in the Tribunal located at Jaipur. It has been further averred that since there is only one Tribunal located at Jaipur, it amounts to denial of right of judicial review to the petitioner and the Teachers who are low paid persons and can hardly afford the luxury of visiting Jaipur every now and then for the purpose of pursuing case before the Tribunal and, therefore, the remedy provided under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is not efficacious alternative remedy and the petitioner is entitled to maintain this petition. It has been prayed that the order dated 11th March, 1998 may be quashed and the respondent-State be directed to locate an Educational Tribunal at Jodhpur. 3. Mr. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate, contended that since the principles of natural justice have been violated, this Court should entertain the petition even though there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that no relief has been claimed against respondent No. 1- State of Rajasthan except that a direction to the State to locate an Educational Tribunal at Jodhpur. V V. John Memorial School is not a statutory body. It is well settled that writ does not lie against a private person. A reference of one case on the point would be enough. V V. John Memorial School is not a statutory body. It is well settled that writ does not lie against a private person. A reference of one case on the point would be enough. In the case of M. Madhvan Pillai v. K. A. Balani, AIR 1979 Kerala 120 , the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held the aggrieved teacher of a private college, though affiliated to the University, was not entitled to relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, the writ petition filed against the respondent No. 2 who is a private person cannot be entertained. 5. In the writ petition, it has not been stated as to whether the petitioner or any other person ever made a request to the State Govt. to establish a Bench of Educational Tribunal at Jodhpur or that resolutions were passed by the institutions like Bar Association to that effect. It has also not been stated as to how many cases pertaining to Jodhpur area are pending in the Educational Tribunal, Jaipur. Even it has not been stated as to what expenditure is likely to be borne by a person in moving to Jaipur to present an appeal before the Educational Tribunal. It is relevant to state that there are many Tribunals which are located at Jaipur with no Benches at Jodhpur, viz. a Tribunal established under the Co-operative Societies Act and a Tribunal established under the Wakf Act. Without full particulars in the writ petition, mandamus cannot be issued to the State Govt. to establish a Bench of Educational Tribunal at Jodhpur also. That being so, the writ petition against the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed. The question of establishing a Bench of Educational Tribunal at Jodhpur is left open. 6. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has made an attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making State of Rajasthan as a party in the writ petition, whereas this respondent has nothing to do with the establishment of the V. V. John Memorial School, respondent No. 2, who is a private body. 7. Admittedly, an Educational Tribunal is functioning at Jaipur to decide the disputes between the Management of Educational Institutions and its employees with respect to conditions of service. 7. Admittedly, an Educational Tribunal is functioning at Jaipur to decide the disputes between the Management of Educational Institutions and its employees with respect to conditions of service. The dispute regarding termination of service is obviously a dispute of conditions of service. The petitioner has a right to appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal. Simply because the petitioner is required to spend some money in going to Jaipur, it cannot be said that the alternative statutory remedy is not efficacious. 8. Mr. Mridul has referred to certain decisions of Supreme Court and of this Court to emphasise that this Court can entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is violation of principles of natural justice even though alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioner. There cannot be any difference of opinion so far as this legal position is concerned, but in view of the above observations that respondent No. 2 is a private person and writ cannot be issued against it, these authorities do not help the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner files appeal within 30 days from today, the bar of limitation, if any, under the Act of 1989 shall not come in her way.Petition dismissed. *******