S.R. Alam, Lakshmi Behari, JJ. - (1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (I), Lucknow dated 22.1.1985 (Annexure-6) rejecting the impleadment application of the petitioner.
(2.) Although this matter is listed under the heading 'for orders' but the learned Counsel for the parties submitted that this matter may be heard finally at this stage. Therefore, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
(3.) Sri V.K. Nagaich, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the petitioner being a necessary party, the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting his application for being impleaded in Claim Petition No. 337-T(l)/84. On the other hand, Sri Manu Saxena, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 opposed the writ petition on the ground inter-alia that the petitioner was not appointed on the post of Lecturer of the College in question and, therefore, he is not the necessary party in the proceeding pending before the Tribunal and as such the application of impleadment has rightly been rejected.;