IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.13 of 2010 ***** 1. GAUTAM KUMAR S/O KRISHNA MOHAN YADAV R/O VILL.- PARBATTA, BLOCK & P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 2. AMARDEO YADAV S/O KRISHNA MOHAN YADAV R/O VILL.- PARBATTA BLOCK & P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 3. ARBIND KUMAR MANDAL S/O PULKIT MANDAL R/O VILL.- SONAPUR (BHORHA) BLOCK & P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 4. DINESH JHA S/O JAINARAYAN JHA R/O WARD NO. 10, NEAR LAW COLLEGE, P.S. & DISTT.- ARARIA 5. RAM NARAYAN YADAV S/O SUBBI LAL YADAV R/O VILL.- PARBATTA BLOCK & P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 6. RAMJI SAH S/O LATE KHIR MOHAN SAH R/O VILL.- BIRBAN BLOCK KURSA KANTA P.S. DONAMANI GODAM (KURSA KANTA) DISTT.- ARARIA 7. MADHUKAR BHARTI S/O SHYAMANAND MANDAL R/O VILL.- DHOL BAJJA BLOCK & P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA. …. …. Appellants Versus 1. RAM SHARAN MANDAL S/O BISHWANATH MANDAL R/O VILL.- SINWARI P.S. KURSA KANTA, DISTT.- ARARIA …. …. Petitioner/Respondent 1st Party 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KURSA KANTA, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. BIMAL KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE BAIDYANATH SINGH SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ JAGIR PARASI, ANCHAL AND P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA 9. THE POPULARLY ELECTED MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JAGIR PARASI, ANCHAL & P.S. KURSA KANTA DISTT.- ARARIA . …. …. Respondents/Respondents IInd Set ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha-2, Advocate ----------- - 2 - 3. 25.1.2010. I.A. No.344 of 2010: This is an application seeking leave of this Court to file the letters patent appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11421 of 2009 on 30th October, 2009. We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted by Mr. Jha that the appellants were the necessary parties to the lis in question inasmuch as that on the basis of a complaint filed against him an enquiry was made and eventually the services of the first respondent was dispensed with. Be it noted, the respondent no.1 participated in the enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate and when an order of termination was slapped on his face, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, as is patent, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Collector and opined that there was no justification to terminate the services of the first respondent. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons like the - 3 - petitioner on the post with all consequential benefits. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is further perceptible that no finding was recorded so far as selection and appointment of respondent no. 1 is concerned. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the controversy stood restricted to the first respondent and its employer. In a case of challenge to the order of termination, a third party, cannot claim to be a necessary party. Ordinarily so saying, we would have rejected this appeal but it is perceptible from the order of the learned Single Judge that the benefit of reinstatement has been extended to other similarly situated persons. In our considered opinion, such relief could not have been granted to other similarly situated persons as the writ petition was filed by a singular writ petitioner and a finding has been recorded that his appointment was valid. In view of the aforesaid, while not entertaining the application for leave, we only modify the order of the learned Single Judge that the benefits extended therein will stand extended to the writ petitioner alone. - 4 - The application as well as the appeal stand disposed of accordingly. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)