WP(C) 8995/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.Ali, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.6. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Mi sra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. This writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005 challenging the order dated 16.5.1999 passed by the Managing Committee of the Senior Madrassa in which the p etitioner had been working as a Chowkidar. Thus, the writ petition, challenging the order of discharge, was filed after about 6‰ years. The only ground urged t o cover up the gap of 6‰ years in approaching the writ Court is that the petit ioner was submitting representations to the authorities. It is also on record t hat after discharge of the petitioner from service, another person namely, Maja mmil Hussain Khan has been appointed. His such appointment was on 14.8.199 9. But he is not party in this proceeding. The petitioner was first appointed by the Managing Committee of the sch ool on 1.5.1990. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension by order dated 17. 4.1999. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him on 16.3.1999 allegin g submission of false educational qualification certificate, unauthorized absenc e from duty, presence in the meeting of false recruitment etc. Although according to him he had submitted show cause reply denying the ch arges but as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the peti tioner neither responded to the show cause notice nor to the disciplinary procee ding conducted against him. Such assertion on the part of the respondents goes unrefuted in absence of any rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The moot question which calls for consideration of this Court is as to w hether the writ petition is maintainable, as has been raised by Mr. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6. He submits that the scho ol in question is purely a venture one and still at the venture stage and thu s, the writ petition is not maintainable as the Managing Committee of the school , a private body is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this connection, he h as placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 1 GLT 86 (Sale ha Begum v. State of Assam). Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school being in receipt of financial grants from the Government, the writ petition is m aintainable. Merely because the school has been provided with some financial ai d by the State Government without anything to show that it has control over the school, more particularly, in the matter of appointment, discharge etc. it can not be said that the Managing Committee of the school is an authority within the meaning of Article 1 2 of the Constitution of India. Neither in the order of appointment nor in the order of discharge, there is an ything to show that the same was with the approval of any departmental authori ty. The school being at the venture stage, it is the Managing Committee which r uns the affairs of the school. It is immaterial as to whether it has received so me financial aid from the Government so long as the Government does not have an ything to say in the matter of appointment and discharge from service. In Saleha Begum (supra), under somewhat similar circumstances this Court held t hat the writ petition was not maintainable. There is nothing to show that the s chool is in deep and pervasive control of the Government or the financial assis tance provided to the school as grants by the Government has got anything to do with the control of the Managing Committee of the school in respect of appointme nt and discharge of the employees. Apart from the above, the writ petition having been filed after more tha n 6‰ years without any plausible explanation as to the cause of delay, I am of t he considered opinion that reluctance to entertain the writ petition would be th e proper course, more particularly, when the person, who has been appointed agai nst the post, is not a party to this proceeding. As noticed above, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice alleging certain serious misconduct against him. Although according to the peti tioner, he had submitted his reply but in the affidavit-in-opposition, the resp ondents have categorically stated that such statement is false as no reply was furnished by the petitioner nor he participated in the disciplinary proceeding. In the para-wise comments furnished by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Educati on, such stand on the part of the Managing Committee has been supported. Considering the matter in its entirety as discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.