- (1.) IN the controversy between the writ petitioner Km. Shakuntala Tandon on the one hand and the Committee of Management and the District INspector of Schools, on the other, regarding the option of Km. Shakuntala Tandon to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years and her subsequent withdrawal of it does the mere expectation of promotion, consequent upon Km. Shakuntala Tandon's retirement from service, give rise to a cause of action to the appellant Smt. Daya Sharma to intervene in the matter, solely on the ground that she is next in seniority to Km. Shakuntala Tandon ? IN other words, does she in the circumstances have any locus-standi to contest the relief sought by the writ petitioner Km. Shakuntala Tandon ? Herein lies the issue that arises at the very outset in this Special Appeal.
(2.) TO give the relevant factual background, on January 2, 1991 Km. Shakuntala Tandon gave her optical to retire from service at the age of 58 years. This option, she later withdrew on November 24, 1993 and December 21, 1993. The District Inspector of Schools on his part wrote to the Committee of Management on December 29, 1993 seeking their comments, on the withdrawal of the option by Km Shakuntala Tandon. The due date of retirement of Km. Shakuntala Tandon was June 30, 1996 but it would be June 30, 1994 if withdrawl of her option to retire at the age of 58 years was not permitted. It appears that no comments were sent by the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools declined withdrawal of the option saying, by his order of January 21, 1994, that there was no provision under which the option of Km. Shakuntala, Tandon could be returned to her. It will be seen that the issue that arose in the writ petition was one between Km. Shakuntala Tandon and the District Inspector of Schools, in which the appellant Smt. Daya Sharma had no role to play. She was not in any way involved in the controversy and nor was any relief claimed against, her. This being so there can be no escape from the conclusion that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be impleaded as a party to' the writ petition. The Learned single Judge in fact, fell in error in impleading her The mere prospect of a post becoming available for her promotion, on the writ petitioner retiring from service, cannot suffice to provide her any cause of action to intervene in the matter, rather she cannot, but be branded as an unnecessary intruder.
(3.) EARLIER too while dealing with a similar situation a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal 842 of 1993 (Smt. Kamla Sharma v. Deputy Director of Education) decided on December 20, 1993 had observed" the matter as to whether in terms of the option exercised by the writ petitioner and the service rules governing her condition of service, she should be allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years or should be made to retire at the age of 58 years is entirely between the petitioner and the education authorities of the State. The appellant Smt. Kamala Sharma cannot be allowed to contended that the writ petitioner should be made to retire at the age of 58 years. The Special Appeal having thus been filed by a person having no locus-standi to claim the relief sought, is on this short ground, hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;