ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the following prayers have been made:- “(i) To quash and set aside the decision of respondent No.1 (NHAI) contained in Ref. No. NHAI/PIU/PD/RNC/NH-33/LEC/1671 dated 23rd November 2017 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder, a direction was issued to replace this petitioner, the Team Leader, as the petitioner was not found suitable for the post of Team Leader. (ii) To also quash and set aside the decision of respondent No.2 contained in Letter No.LEC/CORP/2017/10637 dated 29th December 2017 (Annexure-6), whereby and whereunder, the service of the petitioner has been ordered to be discontinued with immediate effect on the basis of the instruction given by the employer NHAI.” 2. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been appointed by one M/s Lion Engineering Consultants as Team Leader to look after the work to be executed by the National Highways Authority of India (in short NHAI) but the NHAI has issued a letter on 29th December, 2017 expressing displeasure about the performance of the work of the petitioner as Team Leader and held to be not suitable and communicated the said order to his appointing authority, in terms thereof, the decision has been taken by the employer of the petitioner namely, M/s Lion Engineering Consultants on 29th December, 2017 discontinuing the services of the petitioner with immediate effect against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order merely on the ground that before communicating the decision dated 23rd November, 2017, the NHAI has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence, discontinuation from service is against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the discontinuation be held to be unsustainable and may be quashed. 4. Ms. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI has submitted that the petitioner is having no grievance against the NHAI since he is not the appointee of the NHAI rather NHAI has engaged a consultant namely, M/s Lion Engineering Consultants in order to look after the construction work of laning of Barhi-Hazaribagh section of NH-33 from km 0.00 to km 40.500 in the State of Jharkhand on EPC mode. The petitioner, since, has been appointed as Team Leader by the consultant has found to be not performing the work, therefore, the displeasure has been shown by the NHAI authority to the consultants as would be evident from the communication dated 23rd November, 2017 and that has been communicated to the consultant making therein reference of the earlier conduct on the basis of the assessment of his performance of the work which has been assessed in the meeting held on 14th November, 2017 but the petitioner in the capacity of Team Leader has not improved himself, therefore, the consultant acting upon the same has discontinued him from services. According to her, since the petitioner is the appointee of the aforesaid consultant, has been appointed in terms of the conditions stipulated under Annexure-1 which itself suggests that he has got no direct nexus with the NHAI and hence, having no grievance against the respondent authority. She further submits that whatever grievance of the petitioner is, that is against the consultants. The further submission is that the petitioner being the Team Leader appointed by the Consultants is holding no statutory post, therefore, the same is not to be looked into by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submission, it is evident from the material available on record that NHAI has allotted work for construction in favour of M/s Lion Engineering Consultants but in order to monitor the work, has appointed the petitioner as Team Leader. The NHAI in order to assess the performance of work used to monitor the work by convening meeting and for that purpose, Lion Engineering Consultants has engaged the petitioner as Team Leader. 6. The duty of the Team Leader is to monitor the entire performance of work as would be evident from Annexure-2 that periodically meeting regarding the performance of the work, the NHAI has expressed displeasure about the performance of the work of the Team Leader since the proper presentation of the status of the work/original work programme further prayer needed has not been presented. It is further evident that the petitioner on earlier occasion also has been cautioned about the same but he has not improved himself so far as the performance of the work is concerned, therefore, finally a decision has been taken on 23rd November, 2017 expressing displeasure about the performance of the work in presentation by the Team Leader i.e., the petitioner and held to be not suitable for the post of Team Leader, acting upon the same, the Consultant has discontinued the petitioner with immediate effect vide order dated 29th December, 2017. 7. The sole contention of the petitioner in assailing the order dated 23rd November, 2017 as also 29th December, 2017 is that before doing that, no opportunity of hearing has been given. 8. Here, question is that the opportunity is to be given which will depend upon the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. If the appointee is not in the regular establishment, certainly, provision of discipline and appeal rule will be applicable and in absence of the same, terms and conditions of the offer of appointment will be applicable. 9. The petitioner here since been appointed by the Consultants which is a private body having been engaged by the NHAI for execution of the aforesaid work, has appointed the petitioner as Team Leader by virtue of Annexure-1 dated 29.11.2016 and from its perusal, it is evident that the said appointment is totally on contract having been appointed by the Consultants which is totally a private body. 10. The question of providing opportunity of hearing by the NHAI would not be attracted for the reason that the petitioner is not the appointee of the NHAI, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the communication dated 29th November, 2017 be held to be unsustainable since no notice has been given by the NHAI, is having no foundation. 11. So far as the question of providing of opportunity by the Consultant vide Annexure-6 is concerned, no direction can be passed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the M/s Lion Engineering Consultants is totally a private body having not covered under the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the said body is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 12. 12. In view thereof and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.