SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought writ of cerliorari quashing the order dated 29. 3. 2000 passed by the president of the Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust, Aligarh terminating the services of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE question is whether this Court should entertain such petition against the action of the president of the Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust. Aligarh removing the petitioner from service. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Chief Medical Officer on 15. 5. 1998 on probation for one year. This term could be extended for another year. His term was extended on 9. 4. 1999. The district Magistrate, Ex-Officio President of the Trust terminated his services fide order dated 29. 3. 2000 within the extended period of probation. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE core question is whether the writ petition is maintainable against a society, which is running an Eye Hospital. Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust. Aligarh is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running an Bye Hospital in Aligarh. The District magistrate of Aligarh is ex-of-ficio President of the Trust as provided under the bye-laws of the society. The Trust has established an Eye Hospital which is known as Gandhi Eye Hospital. It also runs two schools. namely, School of Ophthalmology and School of Orthopedics. These schools are affiliated to State Medical Faculty. Lucknow. The Slate Medical Fatuity. Lucknow conducts the annual examination of those schools. The schools are not part of Gandhi Eye hospital. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Medical Officer on probation in Gandhi Eye hospital. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust. Allgarh is a public body. It is performing public duties by providing medical and surgical care to patients suffering from eye diseases and. therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an action or decision taken by the Trust. ( 6 ) THERE are two aspects of this matter. Firstly, when the Court should interfere in the affairs of public body and secondly, as to the extent to which the Court should interfere in the functioning of such public body. It is difficult to lay down a broad outline to define a public body. ( 6 ) THERE are two aspects of this matter. Firstly, when the Court should interfere in the affairs of public body and secondly, as to the extent to which the Court should interfere in the functioning of such public body. It is difficult to lay down a broad outline to define a public body. Every institution is to perform certain duties by which the public is affected at large but every action by which the public is affected is not an action affecting the public in large. A Company deals with the public but normally the Court does not Interfere in the functioning of a company under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IN Rakesh Gupta v. Hyderabad Stock Exchange. AIR 1996 AP 430, it was held that the expression "any person or authority used in Article 226 of the Constitution should not be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentality of the State but should cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body is not relevant but the duty which is imposed on that body is to be examined. In VS T Industries Limited v. VST Industries workers Union and another. JT 2001 (1) SC 36. it was held that manufacture and sale of cigarettes will not involve any public function and the obligation on the part of the company to set up a canteen, when the establishment had more than 250 workmen, is a condition of service in relation to the workmen providing better facilities to them to discharge their duties properly and to maintain their own health and welfare. The Court observed : "in the present case, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Manufacture and sale of cigarettes will not involve any public function. Incidental to that activity, there is an obligation under Section 46 of the Act to set. up a canteen when the establishment has more than 250 workmen. That means, it is a condition of service in relation to a workman providing better facilities to workmen to discharge their duties properly and maintain their own health or welfare. In other words, it is only a labour welfare device for the benefit of its work force unlike a provision where Pollution Control Act makes it obligatory even on a private company not to discharge certain effluents. In other words, it is only a labour welfare device for the benefit of its work force unlike a provision where Pollution Control Act makes it obligatory even on a private company not to discharge certain effluents. In such cases public duty is owned to the public in general and not specific to any person or group of persons. Further the damage that would be caused in not observing them is immense. If merely what can be considered a part of the conditions of service of a workman is violated then we do not think there is any justification to hold that such activity will amount to public duty. Thus, we are of the view that the High court fell into error that appellant is amenable to writ jurisdiction. " ( 8 ) IN Anandi Mutah Sadguru Srivastava v. V. R. Rudari and others, JT (1989) 2 SC 691, the petitioners therein sought writ of mandamus to put them back in the college and pay them arrears of salary. It was held that the rights are purely of private character and no mandamus could be issued and also if the management of the college were purely a private body with no public duly, mandamus should not be issued. ( 9 ) THE Trust is performing public duty but as it serves the need of the patients affected by the diseases of eye or other relevant problems, this, however, does not mean that the Court should interfere in every action of the Trust. It is within their power to employ any person and if the service of the employee is not found satisfactory It can remove him from service. It is internal management of the Trust. Any aggrieved person against the action of the employer can seek remedy provided under the law. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. .