Virender Singh,C.J. - (1.) I.A. No. 5279 of 2015 Service of notice upon Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is complete. We do not feel necessity of getting the service effected upon Respondent No. 6 as he did not appear before the Writ Court in spite of publication in terms of Order 5, Rule 20 C.P.C. 2. For the reasons carved out in the instant application and there being no serious objection raised by learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the delay of 242 days in filing the accompanied appeal is hereby condoned. 3. I.A. No. 5279 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. L.P.A. No. 547 of 2015 Heard learned counsel for both sides.
(2.) What appears from the records of the present case is that the appellants writ petitioners (for short 'writ petitioners') were never employed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as Computer Teachers on contract basis in various Government Schools of Jharkhand and it was respondent No. 6 only who employed them may be there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and respondent No.6 with regard to the wages of Computer Teachers. The case set up by the writ petitioners throughout is that the State of Jharkhand, in fact, is their principal employer which plea was not accepted by the learned Writ Court and the finding returned is that since respondent No. 6 does not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such writ petition was not maintainable. However, in the operative part of the impugned order it is recorded that if respondent No. 6 does not release the wages of the writ petitioners as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the State and respondent No. 6, the State-respondents will look into the matter and if it is found that the wages have not been paid to the writ petitioners as per the Memorandum of Understanding, appropriate action would be taken against respondent No. 6 in accordance with law.
(3.) We are also of the considered view that in the present set of circumstances, the writ petition was not maintainable therefore, rightly dismissed. The operative part of the impugned order, in our view, should satisfy the writ petitioners if they have any grievance with regard to non-payment of their wages by respondent No. 6 as per the Memorandum of Understanding.;