Allahabad High Court
Uday Prakash Singh vs District Inspector Of Schools Mainpuri on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51913-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 71 of 2025
Appellant :- Uday Prakash Singh
Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools Mainpuri
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Narayan,Ved Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Writ petitioner is the appellant in the present appeal and is aggrieved by dismissal of the writ by learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.12.2024. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the writ petition was filed in the year 1991, whereas impleadment application has been filed in the year 2018. According to the learned Single Judge, there was no explanation for delayed filing of impleadment application and consequently, the writ petition has been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in 1991, the writ was filed against the District Inspect of Schools, who was the concerned person dealing with the grant of financial approval to the appointment of teachers. The prayer in the writ petition was to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's working and also to restrain the authority from withholding the salary of the petitioner for want of approval. The order of District Inspector of Schools dated 18.3.1991 was also challenged. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the District Inspector of Schools, in which no objection was taken with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the State is not arrayed as a party. However, in view of the pronouncement made subsequently in various cases, the appellant moved an application for impleading the State as a party respondent. The committee of management was also impleaded as a respondent in the writ after the previous impleadment application was reportedly allowed. Learned Single Judge, however, has proceeded to reject the impleadment application and consequently dismiss the writ petition for non-joinder of parties. The State counsel has however opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
In the facts of this case, no objection was taken in the counter affidavit to the maintainability of writ on the ground of non-impleadment of State. No equity has passed on to the State for such reason. The petitioner has himself moved an application for impleadment which is not opposed by the State. In such circumstances, rejection of impleadment application and dismissal of writ due to non-joinder appears to be harsh, particularly when the writ is pending since 1991.
In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, the issue regarding non-impleadment of the State, as a party respondent travelled to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7303 of 2008 decided on 12.12.2008. The Supreme Court made following observations in paragraph 4 to 7 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced herein:
"[4] Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 1983; that the appellant on advice had proceeded on the assumption that he had to implead only those authorities, whose orders were challenged by him: and that the respondents therein did not raise any objection that the writ petition was not maintainable for non-impleadment of the state government as a party. He contended that after 20 years of pendency the writ petition was allowed and if the Division Bench was of the view of that state government was a necessary party, it ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to implead the state government as a party, or heard the state government which was already an appellant, instead of rejecting the writ petition after 23 years on a technical ground.
[5] The reliefs claimed were with reference to the orders/communications of respondents 1 to 3, denying him Lecturers pay-scale from 17.7.1972. As respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition were officers of the state government, and having regard to the nature of the relief sought, there is no doubt that state government was a necessary party. But the writ petition not having been dismissed on that ground by the learned Single Judge, and as 23 years had elapsed from the date of institution of the writ petition, interests of justice required that the High Court ought to have either given an opportunity to the appellant to implead the state or heard the state on merits, as it was already a party to the appeal. The rigid principle applicable in regard to non-impleading of necessary parties in suits within the period of limitation, may not apply to writ proceedings, as the provisions relating to limitation for suits under Limitation Act, 1963 do not in terms apply to the writ proceedings.
[6] The appeal before the Division Bench had been filed by the State Government and Director of Education along with Deputy Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools. Though they were not parties, they were permitted to file the appeal. They could have urged all their contentions on merits before the Division Bench in the appeal and such contentions could have been considered by the High Court, instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of parties.
[7] We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench, and restore Special Appeal No. 401/2004 to the file of the High Court, for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the state government and the Director of Education will also be heard, on the merits, even though they were not respondents in the writ petition."
In our considered view also, the writ petition was not only entertained in the year 1991, but a counter affidavit was also filed in which no objection was taken by the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of non-impleadment of the State. Once that was the case and application for impleading the State was otherwise filed, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the impleadment application and dismissing the writ petition for non-joinder of parties. This is more so, as none of the equities are shown to have passed on in favour of the respondents on account of non-impleadment of the State as a party respondent. In the absence of any prejudice to the respondents or any objection to such effect taken in the counter filed by the District Inspector of Schools, the impleadment application was liable to have been allowed.
Consequently, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 6.12.2024 is set aside. The impleadment application filed by the petitioner in the year 2018 for impleading the State as well as other educational authorities, is allowed. The writ petition stands restored to its original number.
We request learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition on merits, particularly as the petition itself is of the year 1991, as per his Lordship's earliest convenience.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025
Noman
