JUDGMENT Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. - Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Principal of St. Jude's High School, Kalajharia Pipeline Road, Burnpur, District- Paschim Bardhaman, Pin- 713325,the respondent No. 4 in the instant application appointed the petitioner as a Librarian and afterwards as a permanent Assistant Teacher in the same school. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 brought an allegation against the petitioner that he was engaged in realization of unauthorized fine from the students as a Librarian of that school and the respondent authorities wanted to remove him from his post. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the school raises his objection to the maintainability of the writ petition as the present writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul Vs. Srm University and Anr (Civil Appeal No. 14553 of 2015, dated 15th December, 2015). Learned Counsel submits that in this judgment, it has been made clear that the application of Article 226 is not only confined to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but, may also include any other person or body performing 'public function/duty' but no writ of mandamus can be issued against any private institution. According to the Counsel, the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 is supervisory or superintending in nature and has been emphasized in so many different cases also. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 also relied upon an unreported decision in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors ( Civil Appeal No. 10003 of 2010 dated July 9, 2019) where it has been pointed out that any private 'Managing Committee' does not constitute a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is not an institute governed by State or Central Government. It was also pleaded that in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sommy Kunjappan Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education,2019 2 KerLJ 82 : 2019 SCC Online Ker 751 it is categorically stated that if a person or authority is 'State' under Article 12 of The Constitution of India, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. Central Board of Secondary Education,2019 2 KerLJ 82 : 2019 SCC Online Ker 751 it is categorically stated that if a person or authority is 'State' under Article 12 of The Constitution of India, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. As per the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of The Constitution of India, 'State' includes the Government of India, State Government, all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India. So, no writ petition will lie against any private school as it is not 'State' within the meaning of the said Article. The management of the school of the instant case is not a statutory body, not created by a statute or under a statute and as the management of the concerned school is purely private in character with no 'public duty', in respect of a dispute between the management and the teachers of a private school, the writ of mandamus will not lie. Therefore, the petitioner of this writ petition does not have a legal right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 must prevail and in light of the above discussion, the instant writ application is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.