Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Having heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the C.B.S.E. as with regard to the following relief:-

"2(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dt. 15.10.03 issued by the respondent no. 3 as contained in Annexure-3, be issued.

(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the petitioners representations (Annexure-4 and 5) within a time frame, be issued.

(iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 to 5 to allow the petitioner in continuous service with all emoluments, be issued."

this Court is of the considered opinion that as the DAV College Managing Committee (Respondent No. 3) or its Regional Director or the Principal are not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, no writ application can be maintained by the petitioner as against them. Since the relief no. 2(i) & (iii), as quoted above, are exclusively against the respondent nos. 3 to 5, this writ application, must fail only on account of its being not maintainable.

2. Mr. Mishra, however, wit