JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner "who is said to be working in Christ Church Boys Senior Secondary School, Jabalpur, as Library Attendant has approached this Court seeking relief to the effect that by issuance of a writ of certiorari the order dated 28-2-2009 (Annx.P/5) and the show cause notice dated 16-2-2009 be quashed and the respondents be directed to inquire into the forged documents said to be issued on 1-7-2002 (Annx.P/4) and grant compensation to the petitioner for mental harassment financial torture and physical harassment. It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed by the respondents as Library Attendant vide his application dated 8-7-2001. He was being paid Rs. 3800/- as basic salary, but by verbal order dated 30-4-2004, he was reverted and is being treated as working on a post equal to Group-D, as a Peon or 'Safaiwala'. It is contended that earlier a Writ Petition (S) No. 3062/2004 was filed where a direction was issued to consider the claim and the allegation with respect to issuance of the forged documents of appointment. However, the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity in terms of the order issued by this Court a show cause notice was given to him of which reply was submitted, but the order has been passed by the respondent No. 1 on 28-2-2009 (Annx.P/6), by which it is said that the petitioner is being paid right salary and earlier there was a mistake committed in giving the pay scale to the petitioner which was subsequently corrected and salary to the petitioner is being paid in the proper pay scale. It is the allegation that the enquiry as was necessary, has not been conducted, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief indicated hereinabove. ( 2. ) THE respondents on service of notice have filed their return. THEy have categorically contended that the petitioner is being paid the salary according to the post on which he has been appointed. It is the allegation that the enquiry as was necessary, has not been conducted, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief indicated hereinabove. ( 2. ) THE respondents on service of notice have filed their return. THEy have categorically contended that the petitioner is being paid the salary according to the post on which he has been appointed. It is contended that the order dated 8- 12-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 3062/2004 was challenged in a writ appeal which was registered as W.A. No. 272/2007, but during the pendency of the appeal since the order was complied with, inasmuch as, show cause notice was given to the petitioner and order was passed after hearing him, the writ appeal rendered infructuous and, therefore, stating such facts, the writ appeal was disposed of on 6-2-2009. THErefore, it is contended that the order passed by the respondents are just and proper and need no interference. At the time of hearing of the petition, a legal question is also raised by the respondents with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, inasmuch as, it is contended that the respondent-School is not an aided school, it being run by a minority Society under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to certain protection and that since no grant-in-aid is being received from the State or from the Central Government, the Society of the respondents which runs the school is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as the same is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition as filed, is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. ( 3. ) COUNTERING such an objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently, contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the respondents are discharging the public duty as is prescribed for a State in the Constitution of India and, therefore, the respondent-Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is contended that such an objection raised by the respondents is not acceptable and the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. ( 4. ) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have perused the record. Thus, it is contended that such an objection raised by the respondents is not acceptable and the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. ( 4. ) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have perused the record. It will be necessary to deal with the objections raised by the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the present writ petition before this Court. True it is that the respondent-institution is imparting education and is discharging a function which the State is required to discharge under the Constitution of India, but at the same time, the respondent is a Society constituted by a minority community and is also entitled to the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The reliance is placed by the petitioner in a case of Committee of Management and another vs. Vice-Chancellor and others, (2002) 2 SCC 630, which was the case where the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition by a committee only on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available under the relevant Acts. The Apex Court after considering various provisions, came to the conclusion that the High Court should not have refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. The issue with respect to the particular objection which is raised before this Court by the respondents was not involved in the said case. Therefore, to say that the writ petition is maintainable against a Society which is not receiving any grant-in-aid in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is not correct. The reliance is further put by the petitioner in a case of the like nature where again the writ petition was not entertained because of availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner has not placed before this Court any law laid down by this Court or by the Apex Court where treating a private Society as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that the High Court has power to exercise the writ jurisdiction. ( 5. The petitioner has not placed before this Court any law laid down by this Court or by the Apex Court where treating a private Society as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that the High Court has power to exercise the writ jurisdiction. ( 5. ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs. V. R. Rudani and others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 . The Apex Court has categorically held that if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus can be issued if the management of the College is purely a private body with no public duty, mandamus will not lie. ( 6. ) THE right of petitioner in the institution is private in nature, it has no public duty or responsibility attached to. THE dispute between the petitioner and the respondents cannot be said to be a dispute of greater interest of public at large. THErefore, the element required for treating a particular institution amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, is totally absent. THE respondents have put heavily reliance on the decision of this Court. THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Saxena vs. Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School, Datia and others, 2009(4) MPLJ 641 , has categorically held that if an employee is working in a institution which is unaided and the employee has certain grievance against such an institution, such grievance of employee being personal in nature, the element of public law is not involved and, therefore, writ petition against such a Society is not maintainable. THE Division Bench decision in the case of Sunil Kumar Saxena (supra) has been constantly followed by this Court. Prior to this also, the Single Bench of this Court has held in several cases like Saravajeet Bhatiya vs. GOC-In-C-HQ Central Command Lucknow, 2004(2) MPLJ 125 and Yashwant Singh Sikarwar vs. Teresian Carmel Education Society, 2008(4) MPLJ 611 , held that the Society being unaided, cannot be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, no writ would lie against such Society. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by the respondents on Division Bench decision of this Court has force. On the other hand, the petitioner could not point out anything as to how the respondent No. 2 is to be treated as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to bring it under the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of a writ as claimed. The objection of the respondents is, thus, to be upheld. The petition is, thus, not maintainable before this Court. ( 7. ) HOWEVER, since once the matter was adjudicated, again if some order passed pursuance to the order issued by this Court is challenged, it will be unjustified to overthrow the petitioner without consideration of his grievance. It is seen from the contentions raised by the petitioner that he is disputing a particular order and it is his contention that such an order was never issued by the authorities appointing the petitioner. Thus, in fact, the petitioner is disputing the order by which the respondents show that the petitioner was appointed. According to the petitioner, he made an application on 11-5-2000, which was referred to on 8-7-2001 and an appointment was given to him. Certain amount was credited in the bank account of the petitioner. It is the contention that subsequently the order dated 1-7-2002 (Annx.P/4 to the writ petition) was said to be issued in which it was said that the petitioner was appointed on a post in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-50-2500-55-2830 with effect from 1-7-2002. It is, thus, contended by the petitioner that as against his appointment on a higher pay scale subsequent order was issued behind the back and the petitioner was said to be appointed on a lower pay scale. HOWEVER, there is nothing placed on record by the petitioner to indicate that he was appointed on a post carrying a higher pay scale. He has put reliance only on a pass book of the bank wherein the deposit in his account have been shown. What were the nature of the deposit, whether they were deposited towards the salary and whether such an amount was calculated on the basis of a particular pay scale or not, nothing can be inferred from such a document. He has put reliance only on a pass book of the bank wherein the deposit in his account have been shown. What were the nature of the deposit, whether they were deposited towards the salary and whether such an amount was calculated on the basis of a particular pay scale or not, nothing can be inferred from such a document. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition cannot be a remedy for deciding such disputed question of facts. It is not open to record the evidence and give a finding on the basis of such evidence. On the contrary, it is the settled law that disputed question of facts are not to be examined in the writ petition which is to be decided only on the basis of affidavits of the parties. ( 8. ) AS against this, the contention of the respondents is that they have made the appointment of petitioner only by the order dated 1-7-2002 and prior to this order, there was no order of appointment issued to the petitioner in any pay scale. It is their case that there was a mistake committed in making payment to the petitioner and when the mistake came to the notice, they passed the order and fixed salary of the petitioner in appropriate manner. This particular aspect has been explained by the respondents in their counter affidavit and they have categorically passed an order in reference to the order issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner. This being so, it cannot be said that there were no disputed question and there was no hurdle in the way to decide the claim of the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, it is clear that the respondents have passed an order on 28-2-2009 (Annx.P/6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. If the claim of the petitioner is rejected on such disputed question of facts, he has a right to file a Civil Suit or to avail any other remedy, but not a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, it is clear that the respondents have passed an order on 28-2-2009 (Annx.P/6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, it is clear that the respondents have passed an order on 28-2-2009 (Annx.P/6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. If the claim of the petitioner is rejected on such disputed question of facts, he has a right to file a Civil Suit or to avail any other remedy, but not a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 9. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is devoid of any substance. The same deserves to be and is, hereby, dismissed. Because of the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.