JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. 2. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel takes a preliminary objection that the petitioner being an employee of respondent no.4, VAP Info-solutions, a service provider and a private company, the present petition would not be maintainable before this Court. The said objection is rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner was appointed on the post of State Project Manager/Human Resource by respondent no.4 after selection process and information provided by Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission (for short, 'UPSRLM'). The copy of the offer of appointment of the petitioner is Annexure-3 to the petition. The appointment was governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4, which is a Company. The appointment was on a contract basis for one year, renewable, subject to annual performance review and as per the discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM. The period of contract was valid till 30.09.2019. It is contended that despite the petitioner being appointed by respondent no.4, as there is deep and pervasive control of the State Government over the management of UPSRLM and the appointment of the petitioner was also governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4 as directed by UPSRLM and contract was also renewable subject to annual performance review as per discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM and that the Rules and Regulations as framed by the UPSRLM would be conditional upon the petitioner as such despite the appointment of the petitioner having been made by respondent no.4, it is UPSRLM which is the body governing the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioner and consequently the present petition would be maintainable before this Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the appointment order itself provides that the selection process has been done by UPSRLM and respondent no.4 has only issued the appointment order and further as per appointment order itself as the contract is renewable subject to annual performance review and as per discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM and that it is the Mission Director of UPSRLM who would have the right to terminate the services of the petitioner and further the Rules and Regulations as framed by UPSRLM would be conditional upon the petitioner as such merely because the petitioner has been appointed by a private Company, that would not take away the fact of appointment of the petitioner being governed by the Rules and Regulations of UPSRLM, a State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus the present petition would be maintainable. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 382 to contend that Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has laid down six parameters to establish an employer-employee relationship with the State and the petitioner fulfilling all the said criteria in terms of the aforesaid judgment, has to be considered as an employee of the UPSRLM whereby the very objection raised to the maintainability of the petition gets obliterated. 5. Elaborating this further learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Apex Court has held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, interalia : (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action: (v) whether there is continuity of service; and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. 6. 6. Based upon the said criteria, it is contended that the petitioner was (i) appointed on the basis of selection process adopted by UPSRLM; (ii) the salary/remuneration is being paid by respondent no.4 on the directions of respondent no.2; (iii) the Mission Director of UPSRLM has right to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving one month's notice; (iv) as the termination is to be done by the UPSRLM and the Rules and Regulations as framed by UPSRLM are conditional upon the petitioner consequently the power to take disciplinary action is by UPSRLM; (v) there is continuity of service as the contract is renewable subject to annual performance review and as per the discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM, and (vi) the extent of control and supervision is entirely of UPSRLM. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner fulfills all six criteria as specified by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that once the offer letter/appointment order dated 01.10.2018 provides that the Mission Director of UPSRLM will have the right to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving one month's notice and in the present case no such notice was ever given rather her termination has taken place on the recommendation made by UPSRLM to respondent no.4, Company, to terminate her services in terms of the recommendation dated 05.07.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, consequently the impugned termination order dated 08.07.2019 whereby respondent no.4 has not given her one month's notice and has straightaway terminated her services is patently vitiated on two scores namely (a) the termination order not having been passed by UPSRLM in terms of offer of appointment, and (b) termination order is indicative of the fact that the control and supervision is entirely that of UPSRLM over the services of the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records. 9. At the very outset, the Court would have to consider the status of respondent no.4-Company. No pleadings have been set forth as to whether respondent no.4-Company is a service provider or not. In the absence thereto, the Court has taken the assistance of the offer of appointment as issued by respondent no.4-Company to the petitioner. 9. At the very outset, the Court would have to consider the status of respondent no.4-Company. No pleadings have been set forth as to whether respondent no.4-Company is a service provider or not. In the absence thereto, the Court has taken the assistance of the offer of appointment as issued by respondent no.4-Company to the petitioner. A perusal of the same indicates that respondent no.4-Company has been indicated to be an ISO 9001-2018 certified Company. The offer letter states that the same is being issued based on the selection process and information provided by the UPSRLM for the client appointing the petitioner for fixed term employment. The use of word 'client' in the offer letter is indicative of the fact that respondent no.4-Company has been engaged by the UPSRLM for the purpose of giving workers for being engaged in the UPSRLM. Thus, it can safely be presumed that respondent no.4-Company is acting as a service provider for the UPSRLM for the purpose of sending workers/employees in terms of the information/requisition of the UPSRLM. Armed with this, the Court now proceeds to decide the preliminary objection that has been raised pertaining to maintainability of the writ petition. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed in terms of offer of appointment/ appointment letter dated 01.10.2018 issued by respondent no.4, Company. The offer letter is indicative of the following facts namely (a) the offer of appointment was being given by respondent no.4, Company, which is not a State rather from perusal of records it appears that respondent no.4 is a service provider, which has made the appointment on behalf of its client UPSRLM; (b) the appointment has been made after selection process and information provided by UPSRLM; (c) the offer letter categorically provides that the services of the petitioner would be governed by the Rules and Regulations of VAP Infosolutions, respondent no.4-Company; (d) her perquisites and benefits would also be as per the Rules of the VAP Infosolutions Company; (e) the petitioner has option of leaving the Service of VAP Infosolutions by giving one month's notice or an amount equivalent to one month's salary in lieu of notice to VAP Infosolutions, and (f) Rules and Regulations as framed by UPSRLM shall become conditional upon the petitioner. A probation period of three months has also been provided but after successful completion of the probation period the services of the petitioner would only be continued for the remaining one year of contract. From perusal of offer letter itself it is clearly apparent that the petitioner is an employee of VAP Infosolutions, a private Company. 11. Much emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the selection process having been adopted by UPSRLM prior to offer letter being given by respondent no.4-Company to her and that it is the Mission Director of UPSRLM who has right to terminate her services by giving one month's notice and the Rules and Regulations as framed by the UPSRLM to be abided by the petitioner to contend that the control and supervision is that of UPSRLM over the services of the petitioner. 12. The question thus to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner, a contractual employee appointed by respondent no.4, can be said to be having employer-employee relationship with UPSRLM so as to maintain the petition before this Court? 13. This question has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various judgments upon the point in issue of contractual worker being appointed by a Contractor and whether he can be said to be an employee of the Company, has held as under:- "19. The expression ''control and supervision' were further explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows: "12. The expression "control and supervision" in the context of contract labour was explained by this Court in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union thus: (SCC p.388, paras 38-39) "38.... if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. 39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. 39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor." 20. From this judgment, it is clear that test No. 1 is not met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor ''what to do' after the contractor assigns/ allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what paragraph 12 explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work. 21. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in ''Balwant Rai Saluja and Another v. Air India Limited and Others, 2014 9 SCC 407 ”, as follows: "65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia: (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service; and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case, 2011 1 SCC 635 , International Airport Authority of India case, 2009 13 SCC 374 ] and Nalco case, 2014 6 SCC 756 ." 14. As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case, 2011 1 SCC 635 , International Airport Authority of India case, 2009 13 SCC 374 ] and Nalco case, 2014 6 SCC 756 ." 14. From the aforesaid judgment, it clearly comes out that six parameters have been reiterated by Apex Court following the principles laid down in the earlier Apex Court judgment of Balwant Rai Saluja (supra) in paragraph 21 to establish an employer-employee relationship. Now, this Court proceeds to discuss the aforesaid six parameters as under:- (a) Who appoints the workers? This point can easily be decided as the offer letter has been issued by the VAP Infosolutions i.e. respondent no.4-Company. Though it has been argued that the offer letter has only been issued after selection process and information provided by UPSRLM yet nothing prohibited the UPSRLM to issue the appointment order in case it was considering the petitioner to be its employee. The selection process might have been followed by UPSRLM to ensure that only such staff which fulfills certain criteria in the field in which UPSRLM is operating is provided by the service provider/respondent no.4-Company. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that respondent no.4 appointed the petitioner and hence in terms of appointment, the petitioner would be an employee of respondent no.4 alone. (b)Who pays the salary/remuneration? The offer letter itself indicates the honorarium of Rs.75,000/- per month to the petitioner. Suffice to state that once the petitioner is being appointed by respondent no.4 in terms of the offer letter and is being offered honorarium of Rs.75,000/- per month as such the remuneration is being paid by respondent no.4-Company itself. Even otherwise, there are no pleadings in the petition to indicate that the honorarium was paid by UPSRLM. (c)Who has the authority to dismiss? In this regard, as per general terms and conditions of service, the Mission Director of UPSRLM has been given the right to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving one month's notice. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner prior to terminating her services by means of the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 rather only a recommendation was given by UPSRLM to respondent no.4-Company to terminate the services of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner prior to terminating her services by means of the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 rather only a recommendation was given by UPSRLM to respondent no.4-Company to terminate the services of the petitioner. In case the petitioner was an employee of UPSRLM nothing prevented UPSRLM to terminate the services of the petitioner. In those circumstances, a recommendation was made to respondent no.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner and in pursuance thereof the impugned termination order was passed by respondent no.4. (d) Who can take disciplinary action? There is nothing in the offer letter to indicate about the disciplinary action against the petitioner. However, if the condition in the offer letter of 'the Rules and Regulations as framed by the client (UPSRLM) from time to time shall become conditional upon you and by which you shall always be abide' are taken to be for the purpose of disciplinary action (though there is no pleading in this regard), the same would be for the purpose of secondary control as would be apparent from the use of the words "rules and regulations as framed from time to time" keeping in view the words 'supervision and control' as explained by Apex Court in International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union, 2009 13 SCC 374 . (e)Whether there is continuity of service? The offer letter indicates that the petitioner's appointment is for a fixed term. After successful completion of one year, the contract could be renewed subject to annual performance review and as per the discretion of the UPSRLM. The petitioner was put on probation for a period of three months and after successful completion of the probation, her services would continue for remaining one year period. Thus, this itself makes it clear that there is no continuity of service of the petitioner. (f)Extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision? The offer letter stipulates that the services of the petitioner would be governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4-Company as directed by UPSRLM. Thus, this itself makes it clear that there is no continuity of service of the petitioner. (f)Extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision? The offer letter stipulates that the services of the petitioner would be governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4-Company as directed by UPSRLM. No doubt the offer letter indicates that the Rules and Regulations as framed by the client of respondent no.4 i.e. UPSRLM from time to time shall become conditional upon her yet it can safely be said that said Rules and Regulations were for the purpose of her working in UPSRLM in terms of the appointment done by respondent no.4-Company. The expression "control and supervision" has also been explained in the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that the principal employer (in this case UPSRLM) only controls and directs the work to be done by the employee when such employee is assigned/allotted/sent to him. However, the ultimate control and supervision lies with the Contractor (in this case respondent no.4) as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Thus for all purposes the extent of control and supervision is of respondent no.4-Company itself. 15. Accordingly, a perusal of the aforesaid six parameters as have been laid down by Apex Court conclusively establish that for all purposes, the petitioner was an employee of respondent no.4., which Company is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. As such, the preliminary objection as raised by learned Standing Counsel is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing other remedies that may be available to her before appropriate Court for her grievances.