JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complain about any audio and visual quality. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that the defect regarding serving of copy to respondent Nos.6-10/HCL, may be ignored. 3. This Court, after considering the nature of defect as has been pointed by the office, deem it fit and proper to ignore the same, accordingly, the same is ignored. I.A. No.8992 of 2018: 4. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 58 days in preferring the instant appeal. 5. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 6. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No.18 of 2018: 7. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1951 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ Court had refused to pass positive direction upon the respondent-Managing Committee of the Schools and further to restrain the respondent-Hindustan Copper Ltd. from taking any step to terminate the services of the appellants/writ petitioners working as teaching and non-teaching staffs till the schools are taken over by the State Government. 8. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein reads as hereunder: The Management of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. established number of schools, in which, the present appellants/writ petitioners were working. But, all of a sudden, the Management of the company issued a letter dated 16.07.2001 whereby a decision was taken to close down the school in question. However, upon representation being made by the appellants/writ petitioners, the Managing Committee of the school gave assurance to the appellants/writ petitioners that they will pursue the matter of taking over of the school by the State Government. However, upon representation being made by the appellants/writ petitioners, the Managing Committee of the school gave assurance to the appellants/writ petitioners that they will pursue the matter of taking over of the school by the State Government. It is the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that the management, right from the very beginning attempted to create an impasse in relation to the legitimate rights of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school as at the relevant time when the State Government requested the management to handover the management and control of the school to State Government that was denied by the management of the respondent-Hindustan Copper Ltd., in short HCL, and the management decided to run the school on its own, therefore, the action of the management in refusing to handover the school to the Government on one hand and issuing orders of termination and closing down of school on the other, amounts to colourable exercise of powers. However, later on, when request was made by the management of school to the State Government they stepped back from their earlier stand, therefore, grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the said action of the management of the HCL is causing great prejudice to the interest of the appellants/writ petitioners because it will ultimately lead to starvation of the teaching and non-teaching staffs including their families. In these circumstances, the appellants/writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia therein to issue a direction upon the respondent-managing committee of the school not to close down the school and further prayer was made to restrain the respondent-Hindustan Copper Ltd. from taking any step to terminate the services of the appellants/writ petitioners working as teaching and non-teaching staffs till the schools are taken over by the State Government. 9. The respondent-HCL appeared before the writ Court on being called upon inter alia taking the stand in the counter affidavit that the issues raised by the appellants/writ petitioners have already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 279 and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 279 and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. The writ Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners as also considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) had decided the issue by not interfering with the relief sought for in the writ petition since the matter has already been dealt with by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, therefore, according to the learned Single Judge of this Court it has been opined in the impugned order that there is no reason or occasion for this Court to interfere with the finding recorded in the above cited case by taking into consideration the factual aspect involved in the case, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 10. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the factual aspect and by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), has incorrectly decided the writ petition by dismissing it because according to Mr. Ojha, the factual aspect involved in the instant case is quite different to that of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). He further submits that he has subsequently filed one interlocutory application seeking therein leave of the writ Court to allow the appellants/writ petitioners to make necessary amendments in the relief portion of the writ petition to the effect for issuance of direction upon the respondent-management of HCL to disburse the arrears of salary as also the current salary but according to the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, these facts were not available in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), therefore, the same is distinguishable on fact and hence, the aforesaid judgment will not be applicable in the facts of this case. 11. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), therefore, the same is distinguishable on fact and hence, the aforesaid judgment will not be applicable in the facts of this case. 11. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners and on perusal of the material available on record as also the finding recorded in the writ petition, deem it fit and proper to reflect certain facts which are not in dispute as hereunder: The appellants/writ petitioners, who claim to be teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school, is being run by the managing committee on the financial aid being given by the HCL. It is the admitted fact that the school was not under the control of the management of the HCL rather only financial aid was given to the school being run by the managing committee. The appellants/writ petitioners have joined their duties in the school in question but, all of a sudden, a decision was taken by the managing committee for termination of their services which compelled the appellants/writ petitioners to approach before the management of the HCL as also the State Government for restrainment of grievance pertaining to non-closure of the school in question but when the grievance has not been meted out, the writ petitions have been filed. The learned Single Judge of this Court had refused to pass any positive direction in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners relying upon the judgment rendered in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) by holding in the impugned order that there is no reason to take different view to that of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case since according to the learned Single Judge the factual aspect of the case in hand is similar to that of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). However, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that the factual aspect leading to the filing of the case of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is quite different to that of the present case, therefore, applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) by the learned Single Judge is absolutely incorrect. 12. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is quite different to that of the present case, therefore, applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) by the learned Single Judge is absolutely incorrect. 12. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue, thought it proper to go across the factual aspect as also the finding recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). The brief facts of the case of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is required to be referred herein in order to consider the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge about the applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the fact of the present case. The appellants/writ petitioners of the aforesaid case filed a writ petition before this Court seeking writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.3 to 6 to release and pay DA with arrears along with interest and further a direction was sought to be issued to respondent Nos.3 to 6 not to close the school or in the alternative a direction was sought to be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 2 to take over the management and control of the school in question. The management of the HCL had put its appearance before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the reply was filed taking stand that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HCL and the school and it was stated that the company was merely providing grant for imparting education and the school was run by the managing committee. It was also contended that the school was not the liability of the management of HCL. The school was being managed by the managing committee and only financial aid was provided by the management of HCL from time to time but since the management of HCL was in financial doldrums it was unable to manage the school. However, it was categorically stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HCL and the staff of the school. However, it was categorically stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HCL and the staff of the school. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the matter, came to the conclusion, that the school was not the object of HCL and it found that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HCL and the teachers and other staff of the school, therefore, no direction was given and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chatradhar Mahto & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2003 (4) JLJR 317 . The appellants/writ petitioners in consequence thereof, approached to Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition against the order of learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2004. The Hon'ble Apex Court after hearing the parties and considering the stand of the HCL as also the State of Jharkhand, came to a finding that the management of HCL was giving financial aid but by that it cannot be construed that the school was run by the management of HCL, therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was declined to be interfered with. The other issue which fell for consideration was that even if the school is not a part of management of HCL, yet a direction could be given to the State of Jharkhand under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over Of Management and Control) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1981. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provision of Section 2(d) of the Act, 1981 which is being reproduced hereinbelow: “2. (d) ‘Proprietary secondary school’ means such secondary school whose entire financial liability is borne out by (any registered trust, association or corporate body, individuals or a group of individuals) and which according to such conditions and registrations laid down from time to time by the State Government, may be declared by it a proprietary secondary school.” Section 3 laid down taking over of control and management of non-government secondary schools by the State Government. Section 19 laid down that proprietary secondary school can be established. Section 19 laid down that proprietary secondary school can be established. Section 19 only says that if any registered trust (association, corporate body, individual or group of individuals) applies for setting up a secondary school and promises in writing to bear the entire financial burden of the school, the State Government shall have the power to permit establishment of such school after fulfilment of the prescribed conditions for recognition under Section 19. By this it does not mean that writ of mandamus can be issued to the State Government for taking over the management of the school. The proprietary secondary school is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. The State Government can declare a particular school as proprietary secondary school under Section 19 of the Act on fulfilling certain conditions but the basic thing is that the entire finance will have to be burdened by the trust, association, corporate body, individual or group of individuals. By that the employees of the school will not be State Government employees. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down about issuance of mandamus to the State Government for taking over of the proprietary school that the same cannot be issued because the proprietary school as defined under Section 2(d) read with Section 19 of the Act will have to make a request to the State of Jharkhand that they will bear all the financial responsibilities. If the Managing Committee makes a request to the State of Jharkhand, then the Government may consider but at present there is no such offer by the Managing Committee and as such no direction can be given to the State of Jharkhand to grant recognition to proprietary school because nobody is prepared to take the financial responsibilities of the management of the school. Hence, no direction can be issued to the State Government to take over the management of the school. It require to refer herein that the provision of the Act, 1981 will be applicable in the facts of the case at hand because the school in question was imparting study upto Class-X as would appear from the statement made at paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit dated 05.07.2002 filed in the writ petition. It require to refer herein that the provision of the Act, 1981 will be applicable in the facts of the case at hand because the school in question was imparting study upto Class-X as would appear from the statement made at paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit dated 05.07.2002 filed in the writ petition. So far as the fact of the case in hand is concerned, herein also the prayer has been made in the writ petition for issuance of a direction upon the respondent-HCL not to close down the school namely, ICC Middle School being run and managed by HCL in the interest of general public as well as the students studying in the school and restrain the HCL from taking any step to terminate the services of the appellants/writ petitioners working as teaching and non-teaching staff in the school by the State Government at the earliest. 13. We have already discussed the relief sought for by the appellants/writ petitioners of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and one of the relief sought for therein pertains to a direction upon the respondent Nos.1 to 2 to take over the management and control of the school in question, in view thereof, it cannot be said that the factual aspect revolving around the case of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is different to that of the facts of the present case. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has submitted that one interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the prayer portion for issuance of a direction to disburse the arrears of salary. The said prayer was also available in the case of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). However, it requires to refer herein that the aforesaid interlocutory application being I.A. No.2552 of 2015 has not been allowed as would be evident from the order sheet of the writ Court, however, while admitting the writ petition it was ordered to hear the aforesaid interlocutory application at the time of hearing of the case but we have found from the order sheet of the writ application that the aforesaid interlocutory application has not been moved by the appellants/writ petitioners for its consideration. However, the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has also disposed of the pending interlocutory application including I.A. No.2552 of 2015. It has been laid down in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management of HCL and teachers, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed and in view thereof, since the direction will be required to be issued for the purpose of disbursement of financial benefit upon the managing committee which being not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued against the managing committee. 15. We have gone across the impugned order wherein the learned Single Judge by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) had dismissed the writ petition which, according to the considered view of this Court, suffers from no infirmity because there is no factual difference in between the fact of S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) vis-a-viz the case in hand, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 16. Before parting with the order, we deem fit and proper to pass an order providing liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to approach before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal for redressal of their grievance pertaining to arrears of financial benefit, if any. Accordingly, it is open for the appellants/writ petitioners to approach the Jharkhand Education Tribunal for redressal of their grievance pertaining to arrears of financial benefit, if any. 17. In the result, the instant appeal stands dismissed with the above observation and direction. 18. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.