DORANDA BENGALI GIRLS SCHOOL SOCIETY OFFICE AT DORANDA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DR. PRODYOT KUMAR MITRA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 08.07.2013 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1144 of 2013, which was preferred by this appellant for being joined as an intervenor in W.P.(C) no. 327 of 2013, had been dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the proposed intervenor.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are original writ petitioners but, the fact remains that this appellant had preferred the intervention application mainly for the reason that he was given a land in the year 1930, orally, by the office of Accountant General, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, and since then the said land is belonging to this appellant. It has further been submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are running the school in question which, in fact, should be closed down. Therefore, an application was preferred by this appellant under Rule 12 of Jharkhand Free and Mandatory Children Education Rules, 2011, and on the basis of the application preferred by this appellant order was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi to close down the school. The said order was challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in W.P.( C) No. 327 of 2013, without joining this appellant as party respondent and, thus, interlocutory application no. 1144 of 2013 was preferred by this appellant for being joined as an intervenor which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred, mainly on the ground that on the basis of the application preferred by this appellant, the impugned order dated 19th Dec., 2012 was passed and as such, this appellant, if not a necessary party, is surely a proper party in the writ petition. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed and this appellant may be permitted to be joined as an intervenor in W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that since 2003, this appellant is not in the management of the school at all. In fact, respondent no.4 is a Secretary of Vidya Vikash Samiti, a registered society and respondent no.5 is the Headmistress of the said school, who have challenged the order of closing down the school because of several reasons which have been stated in the memo of W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013. So far as present appellant is concerned, in fact, this appellant has nothing to do with the school, in question. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 that there may be a claim of this appellant about the fact that he should be given the management of Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir but, it is altogether a separate issue. So far as closing down of the school is concerned, the order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, and, therefore, it is challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 who are managing the affairs of the Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir, which is being run by Vidya Vikash Samiti, a registered society. At whose instigation the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi had passed the order, which is impugned in W.P.(C) no. 327 of 2013 is not a material aspect at all. It may be at the instigation of this appellant but, respondent nos. 4 and 5 being the original writ petitioners have challenged the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi and, therefore, this appellant who is claiming to be a driving force of the wrong order passed for closing down the school, is not a necessary party nor is a proper party. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.