P.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as under: There is a girls' institution known as "Vishnupuri Grah Nirman Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, district Aligarh". It is run and managed by a Committee of Management which is petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of the said Committee. Some disputes arose between the teachers and other employees and the Committee of the said institution. Therefore, on the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, respondent No. 1, appointed an Authorised Controller for the said institution by an order dated 31st March, '1990 which is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. This order was challenged in writ petition No. 11267 of 1990. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy as the order dated 31st. March, 1990 was appealable before the Director of Education. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Director of Education which was dismissed by him on 30 -4 -90, Subsequent thereto, on an ex -parte report submitted by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. Agra Region, Agra, the respondent No. 1 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners extended the term of the Authorised Controller for another one year by an order dated 27 -3 -91, a true copy of which is Annexure No. 3, to the writ petition. His term was extended for another year from 6 -4 -91. According to the petitioner, this order ( Annexure 3) was passed without application of mind and in an arbitrary fashion without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. As such the order was said to be an arbitrary, illegal and had in law. Feeling aggrieved from this order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
(2.) WHEN this petition came up for admission on 16 -5 -91, the Court directed Shri S.K. Saxena who earlier had filed a caveat on behalf of K. Brij Rani Saxena, the Head Mistress of the institution, to file counter -affidavit within 24 years and the case was directed to be listed for admission on 21st, May, 1991. It may be mentioned here that Km. Brij Rani Saxena was not a party in the writ petition. Despite the other of this Court, neither the Standing Counsel nor Shri S.K. Saxena filed any counter -affidavit with the result that the petition could not be disposed of finally before 6 -4 -1992 upto which date the term of the Authorised Controller had been extended by the impugned order (Annexure -3) by the respondent No. 1. It gave an occasion to the respondent No. 1 to pass another order on March, 30, 1992 further extending the term of the Authorised Controller for a year from 6 -4 -92. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application seeking amendment in the writ petition by which the order dated 30th March, 1992 was also challenged. The amendment was allowed. So after the amendment, the order dated 30th March, further extending the term of the Authorised Controller for another year from 6th April. 1992 is also under challenge in this writ petition. It was on the date of hearing, that is, 23 -4 -92 that Sri S.K. Saxena alone filed counter -affidavit. Shri Saxena also moved an application praying that Km. Brij Rani Saxena and Mohan Lal may also be impleaded as respondents. Shri Saxena, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard on the impleadment application and also on the main writ petition.
(3.) KM . Brij Rani Saxena is the Head -Mistress of the institution and Mohan Lal, applicant No. 2, is an employee of the institution. Both had some grievances against the Management Committee. It is for this reason that they sought their impleadment in the writ petition. In my opinion, none of them has any locus -standi to get impleaded in the writ petition. The appointment of an Authorised Controller is a matter between the State Government and the Management Committee. None of the rights of these applicants are affected so as to give them a right to get impleaded in the writ petition in which the orders of the State Government extending the term of the Authorised Controller have been challenged. Simply because the petitioners have made complaints against the Management Committee, it does not give them a right to become a party to the writ petition. At the best, they can be witnesses in the enquiry as and when it is made against the Management Committee either before suspending or before extending the term of the Management Committee. Therefore, none of the applicants has a right to be impleaded in the present writ petition. Accordingly; the application for implement in the writ petition is hereby rejected.;