SAYED MAMUR ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against the private respondent i.e. respondent No.4. The petitioners allege that a writ of mandamus may be issued against respondent No. 4 for non -consideration of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain before this Court whether respondent No. 4 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and who is managing the affairs of respondent No. 4 and whether respondent No. 4 is a Government company or not. Thus, petitioner could not point out that respondent No.4 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN view of these facts, I am not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus upon respondent NO.4. Other remedies are available with the petitioners, if the petitioners are aggrieved, they can move be", fore the appropriate forum or court.