ORDER : 1. In these appeals same question of law and facts are involved and they are disposed of by this short common order. The appellants were teachers employed by unaided minority private institutes. 2. In C.A. Nos. 8783-8784/2003, the service of appellant S.K. Varshney was terminated proceeded by an enquiry. 3. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a writ petition before the High Court to redress his grievances. 4. In C.A. No.1382/2006, the appellant Smt. Sudesh Mukul was allowed to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years. Aggrieved thereby, she filed a writ petition before the High Court for redressal of her grievances. 5. Both the petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that no writ would lie against unaided private institutions and the writ petitions were not maintainable. 6. Aggrieved thereby, writ appeals have been filed before the Division Bench without any result. The Division Bench held that the writ petitions are not maintainable against a private institute. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed. 7. Counsel for the appellant relied on a decision rendered by this Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 571 . He particularly relied on the observation made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the order that when an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, being the arm of the institution, is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226. 8. This Court in Sushmita Basu & Ors. Vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 680 in which one of us (Sema, J.) is a party, after considering the aforesaid judgment has distinguished the ratio by holding that the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private educational institute would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no writ petition would lie. In the present cases, there is no question of public law element involved inasmuch as the grievances of the appellants are of personal nature. We, accordingly, hold that writ petitions are not maintainable against the private institute. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. These appeals are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. We, accordingly, hold that writ petitions are not maintainable against the private institute. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. These appeals are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.