JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this writ petitioner, a teacher of a private School has invoked the, writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of Indian making a grievance against termination of her service. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents on the maintainability of the writ petition on ground of the school being not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is upon answer to this objection, the main issue relating to the legality and validity of the order of termination of service of the petitioner will depend. Since the very maintainability of the writ petition itself has been questioned by way of a preliminary objection, same is taken up first for a decision inasmuch as if the objection is upheld, the other issues raised in the writ petition need not be gone into. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are not in dispute. The petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Teacher of the school in question way back is 1991 has been restrained from attending her duties and signing the Attendance Register as per the endorsement made by the Principal of the School on the representation dated 4.8.2003 made by the petitioner. As per the said endorsement, the petitioner was not allowed to sign the Attendance Register in term of the verbal instruction of the Principal and Secretary of the Association which runs the school. It is legality and validity of such an action on the part of the School management authority which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has taken the stand that the school is being run by a Society comprising of some members of the public of the locality and it is only with the help and assistance of some well wishers and members of the Society and teachers the School is being managed. As per the averments made in the writ petition the school has not yet got recognition of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) or any other Board or Authority and thus the students are not being seat for HSCL Examination as regular students and are only being sent through other recognized schools. As per the averments made in the writ petition the school has not yet got recognition of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) or any other Board or Authority and thus the students are not being seat for HSCL Examination as regular students and are only being sent through other recognized schools. As regards the financial position of the school, it has been averred in the affidavit that the same is not sound and the teachers salary etc., are being paid depending upon fund generated from tuition fees paid by the students. In the affidavit, the factum of reduction in establishment and abandonment of Hindi medium and gradual cassation of the Assamese medium leaving only the English medium as the sole medium of instruction necessitating reduction in staff strength has been highlighted. According to the stand in the affidavit such reduction in staff strength required dispensation of the services of the petitioner alongwith another teacher. Finally in the above backdrop it is the stand of the respondents that the school and for that matter the Association which has been running the school is not an authority so as to be included within the meaning of "the State" as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is on this count the very maintainability of the writ petition has been questioned. 4. The petitioner is also not oblivious of her task to establish her case through the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The following averments have been made in the writ petition to bring her case within the writ jurisdiction -- "That the petitioner bag to state that the respondent No. 2 namely Resold and Model School is a mixed medium school for teaching the students for enabling them to appearing the HSLC Examination held by the Secondary Examination Board of Assam (SEBA) under the control of the Govt. of Assam. The said school is managed and run by the respondents No. 1 namely M/s Multipurpose Progressive Association (M/s M.P.A.) which is an Association of public nature for undertaking various types of works for the interest of general public. of Assam. The said school is managed and run by the respondents No. 1 namely M/s Multipurpose Progressive Association (M/s M.P.A.) which is an Association of public nature for undertaking various types of works for the interest of general public. The aforesaid respondents may be legally deemed to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India." "That the petitioner beg to state that the Secretary of the Association has no legal jurisdiction to interfere with the service matter of the petitioner as have been done in the above manner. The Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to quash the impugned order (verbal) in exercise of its power under Article 226of the Constitution of India. This is further stated that the said order is made without any enquiry of any kind against the petitioner." It is on the above basis, the prayer had been made to set aside the order of termination of her service. 5. In the rejoinder to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the petitioner, the stand of the respondents had been denied. According to the petitioner the school had been recognized by the State Government. According to the petitioner, the respondents are "State" within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the writ petition, the Association which had been running the school, the school in question and the Secretary of the Association (by name) have been impleaded as respondent. Neither the State Govt. nor any officers or Authority of the State Govt. are party to the writ proceeding. Although an averment had been made in the writ petition and was also in the rejoinder that the school in question is a recognized one by the "Appropriate Authority", no mention has been made as to who is that appropriate authority. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the school is discharging public function and the activities of the school being of public importance, the Association which had been running the school and for that matter the school itself is an Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Number of decisions have been cited on behalf of the petitioner to bring home the question of maintainability of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Number of decisions have been cited on behalf of the petitioner to bring home the question of maintainability of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. The said decisions are as reported in : (i) (Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh) (ii) AIR 1998 SC 295 (K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateawara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr.) (iii) (2001) 2 GLR 378 (Maharishi Vidya Mandir Guardian's Action Committee and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors.) (iv) (2002) 3 GLR 104 (Jyotishmoy Bora v. Governing Body (Special) Pragjyotish Cellete and Ors.) 7. In the first two decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that the term "Authority" used in Article 226, the context must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 226 centers power on the High Courts to issue writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. The emphasised is as to the nature of duty imposed on the body. In the case of Unni Krishnan (supra), the matter was pertaining to the admission and charging of capitation fees in private unaided/aided recognised/affiliated educational institutions. The Apex Court was called upon to examine the extent to which subject to condition and regulation of the State such institutions could charge the capitation fees. While recognising that private unaided recognised/affiliated educational institutions running professional courses entitled to charge fee higher than that charged by the Government institutions for similar courses observed that such fee cannot exceeded the maximum limit fixed by the State. It was further observed that the State while granting recognition/affiliation to private educational institutions running professional courses obliged to impose condition for maintaining standard and ensuring fairness, inter alia, in respect of fees chargeable and admissions. It has been held that institutions are obliged to act fairly consistent with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and in-accordance with the condition of recognition/affiliation. Those institutions performing public duty by way of supplementing State function (imparting education) were held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 8. It has been held that institutions are obliged to act fairly consistent with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and in-accordance with the condition of recognition/affiliation. Those institutions performing public duty by way of supplementing State function (imparting education) were held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 8. In the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu (supra), the Apex Court while noticing that executive instructions issued by the Government giving the employees of the private College in question, the right to claim the pay scale so as to be at per with the Government employees and in the context of the Interest created by the Government in an institution to Impart education which is a fundamental rights of the citizens, held the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to be maintainable. It was in that context, the Apex court observed that when an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element the teachers in question, the arm of the institution was entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226. However, in the same breath the Apex Court pointed out that it would be different position, if remedy is a private law remedy. 9. In the case of Maharishi Vidya Mandir Guardian's Action Committee (supra), following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan (supra) this Court having regard to the fact that the educational institution is affiliated to the CBSE and there being hike in the tuition fees recognised the involvement of public element and it was in that context the writ petition filed by the Guardian's of the pupils was entertained. 10. In the case of Jyotishmoy Bora (supra), this Court after noticing an earlier case of this Court by which it was held that the teachers of educational institutions establishment under the statutory provisions or under the control of State are entitled to vindicate their grievance availing their remedies under Article 226 held the writ petition to be maintainable. That was a case relating to denial of appointment as Lecturer against the non-sanctioned post. The College in question is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government and is being regulated by the Government inasmuch as the Governing Body of the College is also constituted by the State Government. That was a case relating to denial of appointment as Lecturer against the non-sanctioned post. The College in question is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government and is being regulated by the Government inasmuch as the Governing Body of the College is also constituted by the State Government. It was having regard to these factors, the writ petition was hold to be maintainable. 11. Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the appointment of the petitioner teeing purely on a private capacity and the school in question which is run by the Association teeing act in receipt of any kinds of grant from the Government, same is not an Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to be brought within the purview of writ jurisdiction, Referring to the averments made in the affidavit, he submitted that the school in question has keen running on the basis of the tuition fees being collected from the students and there is no involvement of any control not to speak of any deep or pervasive central of the Government over the school. He submitted that the school is not even a recognised one and the students are teeing sent for HSLC Examination through other recognised schools. This being the position, he submitted that the writ petition is net maintainable and the dispute in question is purely a private one without there being any element of public duty or function. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad and others). In the said case the Apex Court after noticing the various earlier judgments held the writ petition to be not maintainable. That was a case relating to termination of service of the workmen of the Mill in question which is a Co-operative Society registered as such under Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In that it was argued that even if the mill is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ application can be entertained as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person or authority which would include a private person or body. In that it was argued that even if the mill is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ application can be entertained as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person or authority which would include a private person or body. After noticing that the mill is engaged only in manufacturing and sale of sugar which would not involve any public function, the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have been invoked, in the said case, the Apex Court has summarised the expression "other authorities" after expressing a note of caution that it must be realised that it should not tee stretched so far to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. The Apex Court has cautioned that wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by wise limitation. 12. In the present case, the admitted position is that the school in question is a private school run by an Association formed by the local residents. The school is not a creation of any statute. There is also no Government control over the school and the same is being run on the basis of tuition fees collected from the students. The appointment of the petitioner was in private capacity without there being any kind of recognition or approval on the part of the State authorities. 13. The Association, a non-statutory body exercising no statutory power "is not a State" the school being a private body having no statutory power not being supported by any State act and not being an agency of the Government, in my considered opinion a writ petition against the school is not maintainable. The school which is being run by the Association is a private institution against which no writ of mandamus can be issued on the issue in question. Having reward to the nature of appointment made and the obligation of the school over the teachers, the rights are purely of a private character. 14. In all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to be maintainable having regard to the public element involved centering around the core issue. 14. In all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to be maintainable having regard to the public element involved centering around the core issue. Same is not the case here. The admitted position is that the school is being run by a private body and the employee and the employer relationship between the petitioner and the Management of the school is purely within private law and not under the public law. Thus, the petitioner although has private law remedy, does not have the public law remedy. The mandamus as has been prayed for in the writ petition if granted will have to be issued to the Association or the school in question which is a private body imparting education to the students managing the affairs of the school on the basis of tuition fees collected from the students. Nothing could be shown that the institution is in receipt of any kinds of grants from tile Govt. of Assam. Severance of the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the school authority does not involved any public element so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction over the Managing Committee of the school. Although Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers wide powers on the High Court to issue writ in the nature of prerogative writs but there are limitation towards issuance of the same as discussed above. I may gainfully refer f the decision of this Court as reported in 2000 (1) GLT 470 (Prabhu Nath Pandey v. Union of India) in which services of a school teacher in an Army School managed by Army Welfare Education Society has been held to be a contract of employment because of its non-statutory character and such a contract of employment cannot ordinarily be enforced against an employer and the remedy lies elsewhere. In that case also the services of the teachers were terminated and they approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction. 15. In that case also the services of the teachers were terminated and they approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction. 15. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1994 (1) GLR 2002 (Managing Committee, Silchar Medical College v. Debt Pada Bhattacharjee it has been observed in paragraph 12 as follows :- "Although a private educational institution performs public duty in so far as imparting of education is concerned, it may net discharge public duty in other matters. The present case is purely of a private institution, and the management of the school is also a private body. Therefore, if the right of the employees in this school is purely of a private character, the management performs no public duty in this regard. The petitioner is an employee of a private body. He is not a civil servant nor a workman under the industrial law. This being the position, if the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service it would be against the preponderant judicial pronouncement of the court that a service contract cannot be specifically enforced. Therefore, the alleged right of the petitioner in this ease is of a private character, and no mandamus can issue and no petition for mandamus will lie," 16. In the instant case also, the school in question is run by an Association (a private body) and is purely private educational institution. Imparting of education by the school and the right of a teacher in the school are two different concepts altogether. Imparting of education may have a public duty flavour, but net in the real of affairs relating to employment. Thus the concept of public duty or function cannot be pressed into service towards making a challenge in respect of violation of conditions of s men service and consequently no mandamus will lie and for that matter writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The essence of the attack on the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been answered in the positive, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid discussion I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The essence of the attack on the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been answered in the positive, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently the other issues raised in the writ petition including the main issue regarding legality and validity of the termination of service of the petitioner need not be gone into. 18. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum/court towards redressal of her grievance, if any.