JUDGMENT : Mr. Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. E.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that he has instructions of Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, to appear in this matter and present the case on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Chamuah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. None appears for the respondent No.1, being the Union of India in the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development and also the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 2. The order of the Lawazima Court dated 14.12.2015 indicates that notices had duly served on the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, but none had entered appearance for the said respondents. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition assails an order dated 10.12.2008 under the signature of the Chairman, Hindustan College by which the petitioner who had the designation of Educator in the Fashion Designing Department of the concerned college, was terminated from service w.e.f. 10.12.2008. The sole ground taken by the writ petitioner in this writ petition in assailing the order of termination dated 10.12.2008 is that the same was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also makes out a case that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, being the Hindustan College, is a study centre of the respondent No. 3, University being the Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences, which is recognized by the UGC and, therefore, the petitioner, being an Educator in the said study centre discharges a public duty. 4. It being so, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent Hindustan Colleges is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also relies upon an order of this Court dated 22.12.2008 in WP(C) No. 1409/2008, wherein, the issue raised was for a direction for payment of salary to the petitioner therein at the rate applicable to teachers of Government Schools. The petitioner also relies upon an order of this Court dated 22.12.2008 in WP(C) No. 1409/2008, wherein, the issue raised was for a direction for payment of salary to the petitioner therein at the rate applicable to teachers of Government Schools. In the said writ petition also a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the School Management as regards the maintainability of the writ petition, inasmuch as, the concerned school therein being the Little Star Senior Secondary School is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not an instrumentality of the State as required under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the said writ petition, this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, had arrived at a conclusion that the discharge of duties and functions of the said school are public in nature and by virtue of its affiliation to the CBSE, it is subjected to certain bye-laws, which were in force. Although, in the said case, the termination of the petitioner therein by order dated 10.12.2008 was also assailed, but this Court by referring that the bye-laws of the CBSE, more particularly, bye-law No. 47 which provides for an elaborate procedure for imposing a major penalty which conform to the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice arrived at a conclusion that the said order of termination was at a variance with the procedure of bye-law No. 47, and, therefore, the said writ petition was maintainable. 6. In the instant case, it is noticed that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, Hindustan College is not affiliated to the Sikkim Manipal University as per the stand taken by the UGC. Secondly, the same institute is not subjected to any statutory bye-laws either of the UGC or of the Sikkim Manipal University and there is no service condition prescribed in respect of termination of an employee. From the said point of view, the facts and circumstances under which this writ petition has been preferred can be differentiated from the facts and circumstances involved in the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 6010/2007. 7. From the said point of view, the facts and circumstances under which this writ petition has been preferred can be differentiated from the facts and circumstances involved in the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 6010/2007. 7. In such view of the matter, merely upon the submission of the writ petitioner that as because certain interference was made in the said WP(C) No. 6010/2007, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also maintainable in the present case. 8. Further from the averments made in the writ petition, other than the said stand of drawing a comparison to WP(C) No. 6010/2007, no averment has been made to substantiate that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, Hindustan College, is an instrumentality of the State as required under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Prima-facie, it appears that the said respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is a private institution simpliciter and therefore, violation of any service condition of any employee cannot be made subjected to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner against the order of termination dated 10.12.2008 cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach any other appropriate forum, if so advised. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands closed.