WP(C) 6236/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. P C Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D A Kaiyum, learned counsel representing the respondent No.6. I have also heard Ms. M G Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respond ents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Lecturer in Methametics in the respondent college. Further prayer made is to set aside and quash the resol ution dated 09.06.2007 adopted by the School Managing Committee by which, an exi sting Teacher in the college was upgraded to the post of lecturer in Mathematics , as a consequence of which, the petitioner is no longer in service. The first question, which comes for consideration of this Court is as to whether the writ petition is maintainable and/or the grievance of the petitione r is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was appointed by the Coll ege authority by Annexure-C, letter dated 21.08.1992. Such appointment was made pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee of the college. No approval etc. of the Governmental authorities were obtained towards such appointment of the petitioner, as the college being a purely private one, no such approval was required. The contention of the petitioner is that since the college has been af filiated and/or has been granted permission to open classes in first year and se cond year and such financial aid has also been provided to the college, its affa irs relating to appointment and termination are amenable to writ jurisdiction. From the materials on record it appears that there was dearth of student s in mathematics and consequently, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with. It has been held in Saleha Begum Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 200 6 (1) GLT 86 and 2008 (1) GLT 615 (Mubarak Hussain & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & O rs.) that in the matter of termination of service pertaining to such private ins titutions no writ jurisdiction can be exercised. Nothing has been shown in this writ petition that the college is under any kind of control of the Governmental authorities not to speak of being under deep and pervasive control of the Govern mental authorities. This is the precisely the reason as why in the matter of app ointment or in the matter of dispensing with the services of the petitioner no a ny approval of the Governmental authorities had to be obtained. The educational institution being not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Const itution of India, I am of the considered opinion that writ petition is not maint ainable. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue other such remed y as may be available to him in law.