JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking issuance of directions upon the respondent no.3, namely the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata, to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a non-teaching staff in Sree Visudhananda Saraswati Vidyalaya (Seconddary and Higher Secondary). He claims that he was appointed as a non-teaching staff in the said school with effect from March 1, 2006. Such appointment was offered to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said school vide letter dated February 27, 2006. Since a vacancy has been created in a sanctioned post, the petitioner claims that his service in the said vacancy should be regularised. It is alleged by the petitioner that the managing committee of the said school has already submitted all necessary papers to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for approval of the appointment in the said sanctioned vacancy. When this application is taken up for hearing, Mr. Baid, learned Advocate appearing for SVS Educational Charitable Trust which is a founder body, submits that his client has already filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No.24008(W) of 2010 challenging the validity and legality of the managing committee which was constituted on February 10, 2004. It is submitted by him that the fate of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein is dependent upon the fate of the writ petition filed by his client as in the event his client ultimately succeeds in their writ petition, the entire exercise which will be made by this court so far as the present writ petition is concerned, will be proved to be futile as the right of the petitioner even for consideration of his prayer for regularisation of his service will not mature as the initial appointment was given to him by the illegally constituted managing committee of the school.
(2.) Considering such submission of Mr. Baid, this court finds that the presence of Mr. Baid's client is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute involved in this writ petition.
(3.) Accordingly, this court directs the petitioner to implead Mr. Baid's client as the respondent no.6 to this writ petition. Since Mr. Baid, learned Advocate, undertakes to file a vakalatnama on behalf of his client, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Baid who will accept such service on behalf of his client. As it is necessary, this would be effected in course of this week.;