1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 20.4.2015.

2. Facts of the case are as under. That respondents No.2, 3 and 4 Dashpur Vidyalaya invited applications for appointment of Teacher in the year 2008. The petitioner being qualified for the post of Teacher applied and was called for interview on 14.7.2008. After undergoing regular selection process petitioner was appointed as Teacher w.e.f. 15.7.2008 and she was offered salary of Rs.3,500/- per month with 12% deduction of provident fund. The appointment order was temporary up to 30.4.2009 and liable to be terminated without notice at any stage when the work is not found satisfactory. In pursuant to the appointment order petitioner joined and started work as Teacher and the appointment order was continued from time to time. Appreciation letter was issued to the petitioner. Apart from teaching petitioner was directed to perform other duties like publication of school magazine etc. While performing the duties petitioner has pursued M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry. All of a sudden she was called by the Principal and handed over termination order on 20.4.2015 and asked not to go to her class. The petitioner submitted the legal notice, made complaints to the Human Rights Commission, Government authorities etc. When no relief was granted to her she filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the termination order on the ground that same is stigmatic and passed without giving show cause notice to her and without following the due process of law.

3. This Court issued notice to the respondents and respondents filed return along with preliminary submissions. In return it is submitted that Dashpur Vidyalaya is being run by the society called Dashpur Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti which is a registered society under the provisions of the Society Registration Act. The school is not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government, therefore, same is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, hence writ petition is not maintainable. On merit respondents tried to justify their action on the ground that petitioner has become nuisance in the school premises, her behaviour towards students, colleagues and Principal was not cordial and she was not ready to change her behaviour, therefore, management had no option but to terminate her services. It is further stated that disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated in writ petition, hence petition is liable to be dismissed with direction to petitioner to resort to remedy under the civil law.

4. That Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4 has raised the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that respondent is a private body and is not a ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not amenable to the writ petition. The society is not receiving grant in aid from the State Government, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued. Had it been the case of the students writ would lie but it is a case of termination of services of a Teacher, therefore, she is having remedy to approach the civil Court. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance to the decision reported in (2015)4 SCC 670 (K.K.Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and others). In reply to the preliminary objection Shri Verma placed reliance over the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012)12 SCC 331, and submitted that writ is maintainable. He has further placed reliance over the affiliation bye-laws issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the provisions of the M.P. Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1975 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam, 1975) and submitted that the school is run by the respondents No.2 to 4 is a recognized school governed under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1975, therefore, writ can be