ORDER : Nani Tagia, J. Heard Dr. Ajay Shankar Rajoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned AC to GP-17 appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the termination letter dated 19.01.2023, issued by the respondent No.4 / Manager of D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad, whereby, the petitioner’s service as Science Teacher in the D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad has been terminated. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad is managed by D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society which trust and society is entirely a private body. 4. There is no pleading in the writ petition nor any material has been brought on record indicating that the D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad and respondent No. 6 / D.A.V. College Managing Committee are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby making the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Shiv Shankar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 5476 of 2020 to contend that the writ petition is maintainable even in the case of private institution performing a public function and duty whether it is an aided or unaided institution. 6. The decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner pertains to St. Joseph Convent Girls High School (+2), Barh, Patna whose management authority is entirely different from the managing authority of the D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad. 7. On perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition, there is nothing on record to indicate that the D.A.V. Public School, Jehanabad is performing any public duty thereby amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Shiv Shankar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 5476 of 2020. 8. Under the circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner will not be applicable in the instant case. 9. in C.W.J.C. No. 5476 of 2020. 8. Under the circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner will not be applicable in the instant case. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with a liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.