Dilip Gupta, J.— This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent-Principal, St. Mary's Senior Secondary School, Jyoti Nagar, Banda to permit the petitioners to pay their tuition fees and continue their studies in Class X and to permit them to appear in Class X Board Examination to be conducted in the year 2014. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-Board that the petition against the College is not maintainable as the College is not ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and in support of his contention he has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in M.K. Gandhi & Ors. Vs. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) ESC 2265 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2007 (Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Ors. Vs. M.K. Gandhi & Anr.) decided on 16th August, 2007 which was filed against the directions issued by the said Full Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the writ petition is maintainable and in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the decisions of learned Judges of this Court in Purnima Banerjee Vs. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi & Ors., (1995) 1 UPLBEC 265. The Full Bench in M.K. Gandhi & Ors. (supra) examined whether Delhi Public School which is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education is ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It held that Delhi Public School was not ''State' and the writ petition against it would not be maintainable. The observations are as follows:- "8. The D.P.S. School is managed by a private committee of management. There is neither any pleading nor any averment that it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. There is also no pleading that it receives any financial aid from the Government or a body that is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. During arguments a statement was made at the bar that the DPS School does not receive any financial aid or grant-in-aid from any Government agency. There is no Government control. The D.P.S. School is not a State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution. ................................. 37. During arguments a statement was made at the bar that the DPS School does not receive any financial aid or grant-in-aid from any Government agency. There is no Government control. The D.P.S. School is not a State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution. ................................. 37. The committee of management of the D.P.S. School is recognised by the Board but it is neither a statutory body nor a State within the meaning of Article 12. The legal obligation or duty on the D.P.S. School is neither imposed by any statute nor by any statutory provision: it has been imposed by the affiliation bye-laws and agreement which is a contract between the parties and non statutory. In view of this the writ petition is not maintainable against the D.P.S. School for violation of the affiliation bye-laws." However, as certain directions were issued by the Full Bench, the Committee of Management of Delhi Public School approached the Supreme Court which observed as follows:- "..........Subsequently, the matter was referred to the larger Bench and the larger Bench after hearing the parties, held that no writ will lie against the private school as it is not a ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Having held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the private body, still, they directed the CBSE to take action, as mentioned above. With great respect to the Full Bench of the High Court, we fail to understand the direction given by the Allahabad High Court. In our opinion, the direction given by the Allahabad High Court to the CBSE is totally misconceived and uncalled for. When the Allahabad High Court has already held that the DPS School is a not ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable, there was no necessity for giving a direction to the CBSE which virtually amounts to granting a declaration in favour of those teachers whose services have been terminated. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the Allahabad High Court by unnecessarily complicating the issue by involving the CBSE for a private dispute between the teachers and the DPS. The Allahabad High Court should have stopped after holding that the said DPS is a private body and the writ is not maintainable. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the Allahabad High Court by unnecessarily complicating the issue by involving the CBSE for a private dispute between the teachers and the DPS. The Allahabad High Court should have stopped after holding that the said DPS is a private body and the writ is not maintainable. Hence, we are of the view that no writ is maintainable against a private school as it is not a ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no direction could have been given by the High Court to the CBSE for interfering with the termination of the teachers..............." In the present case also, there is no pleading that the College is ''State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or that it receives any financial aid from the Government or that it is controlled by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Purnima Banerjee (supra) and has contended that the writ petition is maintainable. The decision in the case of Purnima Banerjee (supra) was rendered by learned Judges prior to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M.K. Gandhi & Ors. (supra). It needs to be noticed that in Writ Petition No.22341 of 2004 (Mrs. Nishi Prabha & Ors. Vs. Committee of Management Dayawati Modi Academy & Ors.) decided on 2nd July, 2012 the Court also took the view that writ petition against Dayawati Modi Academy, a private Institution recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education was maintainable. Thus, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in M.K. Gandhi & Ors. (supra) and Mrs. Nishi Prabha (supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Committee of Management, Delhi Public Schools (supra), the writ petition against the School is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________