Bhagwan Dass vs Managing Committee of H.R.Hindu High School, Hissar

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the application of petitioner/appellantBhagwan Dass Kakkar filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as one of the corespondents. It may be relevant to note here that in the application itself, the applicant had stated that he should be impleaded as one of the respondents only to address arguments before the Appellate Court and he would not examine any witness on his behalf.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.7.1979, the respondentmanagement of the school terminated the services of three teachers on the ground that they had become surplus. Two of these teachers (but not the petitioner) challenged the order of the respondentmanagement before the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), who allowed the appeal of the said two teachers vide order dated 23.1.1981. By this order the Director directed the respondentmanagement to restore three posts of teachers for appointment of S/Sh. Harish Kumar as SS Master, Bhagwan Dass Kakkar as Science Master and Dilbagh Singh as B.Ed. teacher in the school.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Director, the respondentschool management filed the civil suit challenging the above mentioned order but the said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27.10.1992. Against the said order passed by the learned trial Court, the respondentmanagement filed the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar. During the pendency of the appeal, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitionerBhagwan Dass Kakkar which has been dismissed vide impugned order.

Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentmanagement submits that no relief has been claimed against the petitioner and as such the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected in accordance with the provisions of law. He further submits that in any case the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 20.7.1979 by which his services were terminated and as such he cannot be allowed to be impleaded as one of the respondents before the Appellate Court. I, however, do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel of the respondents. It is correct that the order dated 20.7.1979 by which the services of three teachers including the petitioner were terminated, was not challenged by the petitioner but on the appeal filed by the other two teachers, the Director of Public Instructions vide order dated 23.1.1981 has granted relief in favour of all the three teachers including the petitioner. Thus a prima facie a right has been vested in the petitioner also by the order dated 23.1.1981 passed by the Director. Though no relief has been claimed by the respondentschool against the petitioner but in case the appeal of the respondentsschool is accepted by the Appellate Court, the petitioner shall be directly affected. In view of these facts he may not be a necessary party but definitely the petitioner is a proper party.

For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.1.1996 is set aside. Consequently the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar stands allowed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.