WP(C) 2733/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. This review application has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2010 passed in WP(C) No.2733/2010. The said writ petition has been dismissed being not maint ainable. The order so passed is dated 14.5.2010 and the same is following the o rder passed on the same day in another writ petition being WP(C) No.2664/2010. By the said order, it has been held that the particular school/Madrassa being pu rely privately managed one, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In the writ pe tition, the grievance of the petitioner was in respect of the termination of his service by the Managing committee of the school. Since the school is purely pri vately managed one, there is no requirement of getting any approval of the autho rities of the Government, either in the matter of appointment of the petitioner or in the matter of termination of his service. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that since the sch ool in question is in receipt of grants-in-aid from the Government, same is amen able to writ jurisdiction. According to Mr. Mondal, learned counsel, the school is governed by the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education Act, 1977 as wel l as the Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961. It is the further case of the peti tioner that the school is governed by the rules framed thereunder. On being asked as to the pleadings in the above respect, Mr. Mondal, leaned coun sel for the petitioner has referred to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, which read as follows :- 8. That the Kharisala Girls High School has been established w.e.f. 1.1.198 8 and the petitioner has been appointed as the founder Hindi teacher of the said school w.e.f. 1.1.1988. The said school has been accorded affiliation w.e.f. 1. 1.97 and as such the said school has been getting grant-in-Aids since long back and also has fulfilled and all the terms and conditions for getting financial as sistance or fixed pay salary or provincialization as per the scheme framed by t he Govt. of Assam. The respondent No.4 and 5 has illegally terminated the petiti oner from his service without any notice, show cause notice and any opportunity of hearing at the verge of provincialization of Kharisala Girls High school for the vested interest of the respondent No.4 and 5. 9. That the petitioner begs to state that the Kharisala Girls High School h as been getting ad-hoc grant in aid since 1997 and as such all the teaching and non-teaching staff including the petitioner shall be deemed to have become the e mployees of the State Govt. of Assam and as such the respondent No.4 and 5 has n o authority/jurisdiction to terminate the petitioner from his service and as suc h a writ of quawanto should be issued against the respondent No.4 and 5 to show cause under what authority they are acting. On perusal of the above, what is seen is that in one hand, the petitioner claims that the school have fulfilled all the terms and conditions for getting financi al assistance but on the other hand, has stated that the petitioner and other em ployees of the school are Government employees. If the petitioner is a Governmen t employee, there is no question of provincialization of the school any fur ther. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner is under total misconception and he does not know of his own case so far as the same relates to the status of the institution he had worked. The institution being not under any kind of control of the Government a uthorities, the Managing Committee is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Man aging Committee does not discharge statutory function. The employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the Managing Committee of the school, w hich was in existence prior to termination of his service is purely a private af fair without any control of the Governmental authorities. It is in view of the a bove, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable and I see no reason to review the said order. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2009) 2 GLR (NOC) 14 (Debashis Das v. Sta te of Assam & Ors.) submits that under similar circumstances, this Court havin g held such writ petition to be maintainable, the order in question is required to be reviewed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid judgment. In the said judgment, the termination order passed by the Managing Committee of the school w as set aside when it was found that the prior approval of the Inspector of Schoo ls, as required under the rules, was not taken. Same is not a case in hand. The re is no question of getting prior approval of the Inspector of Schools towards terminating the services of the petitioner. The dismissal of the writ petition and the review petition will not preclude the petitioner to pursue such remedy, as may be available to him in law.