Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order, dated 11.4.2011, passed by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all service benefits. 2. The petitioner has stated that she had passed B.Sc. Degree, in Nutrition Food Service Management, in the year, 1991. Thereafter, she had passed M.Sc. Degree, in Human Development, in the year, 1993. She had also passed her M.Phil course, in the year, 1994 and had also obtained a B.Ed. Degree, in the year, 2007. Thereafter, she had passed M.Sc., degree, in Physiology, in the year, 2009. She has further stated that she was selected and appointed as a Teacher in the Abacus Montessori School, on 23.2.2009. The terms and conditions of her appointment order are as follows:-"1. You will be paid a basic salary of Rs.5850/- per month in the following scale of pay: 5500-175-9000 With the current rate of DA, CCA, HRA and allowance your gross income will be Rs.14373/-. PF is also applicable. 2. You will commence work on Mon, 1st June'09 and your working hours will be 8.30 a.m.-3.40 p.m. 3. You will be on probation for one year from the date of commencement of work, on expiry of which you will be confirmed, probation extended or terminated in writing. 4. You will not be entitled to any leave during school working days. 5. You will be entitled to all school holidays and end of term vacations but must be prepared to be on duty outside working hours and during holidays if called upon to do so. 6. This appointment may be terminated by either party by giving the other one month's notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reason." 3. The petitioner has stated that she had joined in service, on 1.6.2009 and continued till 14.4.2011, when she was terminated from service. She had also stated that her salary had been revised by the first respondent, on 29.6.2009. During her service, she had earned a good reputation, as she has been carrying on her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors. While so, by the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 11.4.2011, she had been terminated from service, without having proper reasons to do so. During her service, she had earned a good reputation, as she has been carrying on her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors. While so, by the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 11.4.2011, she had been terminated from service, without having proper reasons to do so. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter affidavit, dated 15.6.2011, has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the first respondent-School would not come under the definition of 'State', under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had also stated that the first respondent-School, namely, Abacus Montessori School, is not a Government Aided School. He had further stated that the petitioner had been appointed, on 23.2.2009. She was on probation for one year, from the date of the commencement of her work. Thereafter, the probation period had been extended till 31st of May, 2011. However, the petitioner had been terminated from service, by an order, dated 11.4.2011, as the service rendered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, had relied on the decision of this Court, in ALBERT B. JERALD VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LAWRENCE SCHOOL, reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1286 , in support of his contentions. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent-School, namely, Abacus Montessori School, is not a Government Aided school. In fact, it is a private school, which is being run without any State funding. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the first respondent-school would come under the definition of `State', under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.