Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The fourth respondent, Army Public School, an institution managed by the second respondent, Army Welfare Education Society, a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

2. Petitioner is a teacher P.G.T. (English) in the institution.

3. It is pleaded that the Rules and Regulations framed by the management of the institution governs the service conditions of the petitioner. The society manages 128 Army Schools and 12 Army Professional colleges spread all over the country. More than two lakh children are studying in these institutions. The institution is duly recognized and affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

4. The contract of appointment of the petitioner would reflect that petitioner was appointed on 8 August 1994 on terms and conditions mentioned in the Schedule to the Agreement. The agreement provides that the Rules and Regulations as applicable to Army School shall apply to the petitioner.

5. Rule 86 provides for age of retirement of Principal and teaching staff on reaching 62 years.

6. By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner is assailing the communication dated 21 August 2017 issued by the Principal of the institution informing the petitioner that she would retire on completing 60 years on 10 November 2017, consequently, would relinquish office on the last date of the month in accordance with Article 139(a) of Rules and Regulations of Army Public Schools (19 September 2011 edition) as amended vide letter dated 5 July 2017 and Rule 30 (Retirement) of CBSE Affiliation-By-laws as amended vide CBSE circular dated 20 December 2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that neither CBSE has been made a party nor the circular of the CBSE pursuant to which amendment has been made in the Rules has been assailed by the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the fourth respondent being a private institution, therefore, the writ petition for enforcement of service contract would not be maintainable under Article 226.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading and the documents brought on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

9. The sole question for determination is as to whether the writ petition against the fourth respondent, a private institution, would be maintainable by an employee or teacher for enforcement of service contract.

10. In Fedral Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, 2003 (10) SCC 733, Supreme Court culled out the categories of body/persons who would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This can be found in para 18 of the judgment, specifying eight categories. Para 18 is extracted:

“18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.”

11. The Court clarified that though writ can be issued against any private body or person, the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcement of public duty. It is the nature of duty performed by such person/body which is the determinative factor as the Court is to enforce the said duty, therefore, the identity of the authority against whom the right is sought is not relevant. Such duty, the Court clarified, can either be statutory or even otherwise, but, there has to be public law element in the action of that body.

12. Where a person or authority is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly