Petitioners 1 to 4 in the writ petition are working as teachers, and petitioners 5 and 6 as staff, of the 3rd respondent School. The said School is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi. In the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 series of suspension orders that have been issued to them. It is the case of the petitioners that, while they have been working in the School for a number of years, without any break in service, they were not being paid basic salary by the 3rd respondent School in accordance with the affiliation bye-laws of the CBSE. Further, while the 3rd respondent was deducting various amounts, from the remuneration payable to them, towards Provident Fund, the said amounts were not paid by the 3rd respondent to the statutory authorities under the Employees Provident Fund Act. The petitioners, therefore, took up the matter with the statutory authority as also with the 1st respondent Board. It is the specific case of the petitioners in the writ petition that, it was as a retaliatory measure for making complaints against the management of the 3rd respondent that the latter initially prevented the petitioners from entering the School for discharging their duties, and thereafter, by Ext.P6 series of suspension orders, placed the petitioners under suspension. The petitioners also contend that, while they had approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.15591 of 2015 at a time when they were denied work by the 3rd respondent's School, this Court had initially through an interim order dated 02.06.2015, directed the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to continue to discharge their duties with all benefits in the School. When the petitioners approached the 3rd respondent with the said order, however, they were served with Ext.P6 series of suspension orders, all dated 01.06.2015, a day prior to the date of the interim order passed by this Court. The suspension orders are impugned in the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that (i) they have been issued without any bonafides, and as a retaliatory measure to wreak vengeance against the petitioners for having made complaints against the 3rd respondent School, (ii) that the suspension orders contain allegations against the petitioners which are not borne out by any material available with the 3rd respondent, and (iii) that the suspension orders were signed by the Principal of the School, who had no authority, in accordance with the affiliation bye-laws of the CBSE, to issue suspension orders against the petitioners. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P6 series of suspension orders that have been passed against the petitioners.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 wherein it is stated that the management of the 3rd respondent School had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, and it was as a first step in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings that the suspension orders were issued to the petitioners. It is stated that, the conduct of the petitioners was not such as was to be expected from the teaching and non-teaching staff of the 3rd respondent's School. It is the specific case of the respondents that the performance of duties by the petitioners was not at all satisfactory and it had even resulted in the deterioration of the standard of education imparted in the School. The averments in the writ petition, that, the suspension orders were issued as a retaliatory measure, is vehemently denied by the 3rd respondent, and further, it is clarified that the Provident Fund amounts which had to be remitted to the statutory authority has since been remitted by the respondents. It is also the case of the 3rd respondent that, the petitioners cannot challenge the suspension orders issued to them in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the respondents, the School in question is an unaided School that is affiliated to t