M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)These two petitions are by a third party to the writ petition, by name, Dr. S.R. Mehrotra. The earlier petition, namely, CMP No. 1105/88 is for permission to intervene in the main writ petition and to allow him to present his opinion and take part in the proceedings because he is interested in a question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the proceedings. The main writ petition is one for quashing the selection of the third respondent as Professor in Music by the University. The petitioner therein Is challenging the selection on several grounds. One of the prayers was to declare the creation of the post of Professor in Music as illegal, malafide and null and void.
(2.)Even in the main writ petition reference is made to CWP No. 512/87 which was filed by the present applicant in this CMP for quashing the creation of several posts by the University including the post of Professor in Music. That writ petition was pending at the time when the present writ petition CWP No. 321/88 was filed but subsequently on 12 -12 -1994 that writ petition has been dismissed by this Court. Inasmuch as the writ petition filed by the applicant in the CMP has been dismissed and it has been held that the creation of post of professor in Music could not be declared to be illegal, the applicant herein cannot claim to be interested in any question of law which arises for consideration in this writ petition. As pointed out already the writ petition is only in challenge of appointment of a particular person as Professor in Music and we are only concerned with the rights inter se the petitioner in the said writ petition and the third respondent who has been appointed as Professor in Music. Whatever may be illegality or irregularity urged by the writ petitioner that is not a matter of a question of law which could be said to be a common one.
(3.)It is not in dispute that the applicant is a retired Professor and he is not a person who can compete for any of the posts with which we are concerned in the main writ petition. The only reason given by him in the CMP is that a false allegation has been made in the reply filed by the Vice -Chancellor to the effect that the applicant was also considered in absentia at the time of his initial appointment in the University. According to the applicant that applicant is false as he was appointed only after he appeared in the interview and his merit was considered by the Committee which interviewed him. The averments in the application are that he should present his opinion and take part in the proceedings as he is interested in the question of law. The question whether the averment made by the Vice -Chancellor in the reply filed in the main writ petition is true or not is not a question of law and it is not a matter on which the petitioner can claim to be intervener. Even assuming that the said averment is false it is only a matter for evidence and applicant wants only if at all to give evidence in the writ petition to the effect that the averment contained in the reply is false. The question of truth of the statement in the reply can be considered only if this Court decides that the said question is relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. It is only at that stage this Court could consider recording of evidence on that allegation made by the Vice -Chancellor in the reply or the statement made by the applicant herein in the CMP. Hence we are of the opinion that the applicant cannot claim to be a intervener. It is too well known that a person can claim to be an intervener only if he is interested in the subject matter of the dispute before the Court. Even according to the applicant he is interested in one of the questions of law and he must place his opinion on the said question before the Court but that will not make him an intervener in the eye of law. Hence this CMP is dismissed.