He companytended 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.
The appellant had filed Writ Petition No.15156 of 1983 for quashing the order dated 13.6.1983 passed by the Director of Education and the companysequential companymunications dated 18.8.1983 and 9.9.1983 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura and the Principal of the fifth respondent companylege, whereby the appellant was informed that he was number entitled to Lecturer grade pay scale from the date of his appointment 17.7.1972 .
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, an intra court appeal was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition that is Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools along with two number parties, namely the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education.
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 numberdoubt that state government was a necessary party.The appeal was therefore allowed by order dated 26.7.2006 on the ground that the state government was a necessary party and number impleading of the State Government was fatal to the petition.
The reliefs claimed were with reference to the orders companymunications of respondents 1 to 3, denying him Lecturers pay scale from 17.7.1972.
The respondents in the said writ petition were i Deputy Director of Education ii District Inspector of Schools and iii the Committee of Management of the employer College.
The said argument found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court.
The writ petition was allowed with certain observations, after twenty years, on 15.12.2003.
One of the companytentions urged by the appellant in the appeal was that numberrelief companyld have been granted to the writ petitioner, without the State being impleaded as a party to the writ petition.
The said order of the Division Bench is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Heard learned companynsel.
Leave granted.
