Petitioner is a teacher working in the unaided school being run by St.John's Educational Trust at Kayamkulam. She prays for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication issued by the management informing her that she would be retired from service on the closing day of the school for summer vacation in March 2007. She further prays for a direction to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi (for short, the Council) to "withdraw the affiliation" granted by it to the school.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that she is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of 58 in terms of the clauses contained in the School Service Manual governing the staff of the institution. Since she has completed only 55 years, the action of the management in asking her to retire from service as directed in Ext.P5 is totally illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Council is liable to withdraw affiliation to the school since the action of the management is in gross violation of Ext.P1 Manual as well as Ext.P2 guidelines for affiliation. Are the above contentions tenable?

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the management it I contended that Ext.P1 is only "a guideline prepared by the ISC

Council" with an option to the institution to adopt the same. Referring to some of the clauses in Ext.P1 Manual, it is contended that the management is empowered to frame rules for the smooth conduct of the school as is evident from the option given to the management to amend or interpret the rules. It is further pointed out that the management is also at liberty to fall in line with the local Acts, Rules, and Regulations etc. prevailing in a particular State. Even assuming that the Manual is adopted by the management, it has wide powers of amendment as provided in Rule 41. In short, the contention of the management is that petitioner cannot, as of right, insist that she should be allowed to continue in service till she attains the age of 58 years even though clause 13 of Ext.P1 guidelines stipulates the retirement age as 58. But the primary contention raised by the management is that the school in question being an unaided private educational institution, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,.

4. Since the question of maintainability of the writ petition has been raised as a preliminary issue, I am of the view that the said question has to be addressed at the threshold itself, since consideration of the merit of the other contentions based on the service manual and guidelines for affiliation etc. would be dependent on the answer to the primary question of maintainability itself.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the school having been affiliated to the Council which is discharging a public duty, will definitely fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Council, though a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, is definitely a body which satisfies the definition of a public authority, as defined under Article 12, since it is established for the purpose of imparting education which has been recognized as a public duty. Therefore the school which is affiliated to the said Society cannot take up a defence that it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

6. Per contra, it is contended by the management that the school is not receiving any aid or grant from the Government. It is an unaided private educational institution over which neither the Government nor the Department of Education does have any kind of supervisory or administrative control. It is true that the school has got affiliated to the Council. The school follows the syllabus and curriculum prescribed by the Council. It is also true that the school is bound to follow the guidelines contained in Ext.