JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon respondent no. 3 for her compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband who died on 20.10.2014 during his service period while working on the post of Technician in Nirmala College, Ranchi. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 raising preliminary objection as regards to maintainability of the instant writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondent no. 3 in their counter affidavit to the extent that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment is not correct and as per his instructions two persons have been appointed on compassionate basis in Nirmala College. As such, the petitioner may be given liberty to approach respondent no. 3 by filing a fresh representation for redressal of her grievance. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 reiterated its stand made in the counter affidavit and submits that the Collage is a minority institution and as such, the writ itself is not maintainable before this court. However, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 does not have any objection if the petitioner represents before the college for redressal of her grievance. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is against the College of which respondent no. 3 is a principal. The said College is a minority institution and affiliated to Ranchi University. The institution has been established by a registered society namely Institute of Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary and the decision making body of the registered society is the Governing Body and the Government has no control over the day to day affairs of the College. Further, the grievance of the petitioner is for compassionate appointment due to death of her husband who was working in the College. Now it is well settled proposition of law that the writ jurisdiction provides remedy in the matters relating to public domain and for enforcement of right flowing from Constitution or Statutes. Further, the grievance of the petitioner is for compassionate appointment due to death of her husband who was working in the College. Now it is well settled proposition of law that the writ jurisdiction provides remedy in the matters relating to public domain and for enforcement of right flowing from Constitution or Statutes. In my considered opinion, in the instant case, a writ shall not lie as it has been filed for seeking enforcement of duties other than public duties against a person which is not a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 1 PLJR 269 , wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court after discussing several earlier judgments of that Court and Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para-14 as under: “14. In view of discussions made above and after noticing the various authorities cited by both the parties, we are of the considered view that earlier view of this Court as reflected by Division Bench judgments in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) and Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) as well as a Full Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Manju Devi (supra) does not require any reconsideration. We would, however, like to point out that earlier judgments indicated above, particularly in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra), it was clearly indicated that writ petition against a non-statutory body such as Governing Body of a Private college was not maintainable as there was no allegation of infraction of any statutory provision. In a given case where in exercise of statutory powers the University granting affiliation to a private college imposes reasonable conditions governing teachers or employees of an affiliated college, then in case of violation of Statutes or Rules of the University by an affiliated college a person having corresponding right may be entitled to seek mandamus it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private aided college even if it is a minority institution but the duty sought to be imposed upon a private body through mandamus must be of a public nature otherwise the affected employee will be denied relief in writ jurisdiction. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasji-swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust (supra) is based upon distinction between private rights and duties on the one side and rights and duties of public nature on the other side. It has been established by a long line of precedents that writ jurisdiction provides remedy in matters relating to public domain and for enforcement of rights flowing from Constitution or Statutes. In our view the term “writ petition, is not maintainable” is not fully apt rather proper expression should be “writ shall not lie” when a writ petition is filed for seeking enforcement of duties other than public duties against a person or authority which is not “State” within Article 12 of Constitution.” 7. However, it goes without saying that if the petitioner chooses to file a representation before the respondent no. 3, nothing in this order shall come in the way in deciding the same. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application stands disposed of.