ORDER: This is an application filed by third party seeking permission to implead him as third respondent in Second Appeal No.1740 of 1993. 2. First respondent herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the 5th Additional City Civil Court, Madras in A.S.No.300 of 1992 has preferred the above second appeal before this Court. Initially the first respondent-Educational Society filed O.S.No.5934 of 1987 before the 8th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras against the State Government and the Director of School Education for a declaration that Sreedevi Girls Higher Secondary School and Sreedevi Primary School, Kollemcode, Kanyakumari District established and administered by the plaintiff are minority educational institutions coming under the purview of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and also for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing certain provisions of Act 29 of 1974. The trial court granted a decree as claimed by the plaintiff. Then an appeal was preferred by the Government. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree granted by the trial court, consequently dismissed the suit filed by the Educational Society, against which the first respondent herein has filed the present second appeal before this Court. 3. The petitioner in this application was appointed as Record Clerk in the Sri Devi Girls Higher Secondary School and subsequently he was promoted as Junior Assistant from 1985. According to him, he is serving in the said school for the last 21 years. It is stated by him that the school was established and administered by the first respondent Society in the year 1977, started as High School and the same was upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 1979. The Educational Society which is a non-minority Educational Agency, obtained permission to open to the school by giving a declaration that it will abide by all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder. Necessary endowment was also paid. Since the management is a non-minority management, Form VII(A) or Form VII(B) agreement were signed by temporary and permanent staff members as prescribed in Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Rules which is a statutory requirement to be followed by all non-minority schools. Necessary endowment was also paid. Since the management is a non-minority management, Form VII(A) or Form VII(B) agreement were signed by temporary and permanent staff members as prescribed in Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Rules which is a statutory requirement to be followed by all non-minority schools. The school is a private aided school coming within the definition of Sec.2(7) of the Act and not a minority school as defined in Sec.2(b). It is further stated that the school management scrupulously followed the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act and Rules. The educational society ignoring the undertaking given before the Educational Department that they will run the school only as a non-minority school has chosen to file a civil suit in O.S.No.5934 of 1987 before the City Civil Court, Madras and obtained a decree suppressing many factual aspects. At the instance of the State Government, the decree was set aside by the lower appellate court and the suit was dismissed with costs, against which the Society has filed the present second appeal. It is further stated that they also obtained injunction in C.M.P.No.18855 of 1993 and by virtue of the said injunction, the appellant is administering the Sridevi Girls Higher Secondary School, Kollemcode and the Primary School at Kollemcode as minority schools. The petitioner has also highlighted the high-handed action of the Educational Society in taking action against the teaching and non-teaching staff which resulted in filing several writ petitions before this Court. It is also stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.270, Higher Education J-1 Department, dated 17.6.1998 ordered that institutions claiming minority status shall apply to the Government alone and the Government is empowered to grant such status if it is proved that the object of the institution should be for possessing the interest of the concerned minority; accordingly the declaration of minority status can now be decided only by the Government as per the above Government Order and the second appeal itself has become infructuous. Till the Government gives a decision, the Educational Society is to be treated only as a non-minority institution. Till the Government gives a decision, the Educational Society is to be treated only as a non-minority institution. According to the petitioner, since he having been appointed and entered into agreement of Form VII-B as the staff of non-minority school is very much affected by the grant of injunction and his statutory rights are seriously affected and as such the petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the second appeal. 4. The appellant in the second appeal/first respondent herein has filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. It is purely a matter between the Government and the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner was not made a party either in the suit or in the appeal. The petitioner is totally an unnecessary party and he is not even a proper party, therefore, the present petition for impleading him as one of the respondents in the second appeal is not maintainable. The Government order referred to by the petitioner will not apply to the pending proceedings. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the impleadings petition. 5. I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel for the first respondent at length. 6. It is true that the first respondent Educational Society has filed O.S.No.5934 of 1987 before the City Civil Court, Madras claiming minority status for their institution. The same was granted by the trial court and in the appeal, the suit was dismissed, hence the present second appeal. It is vehemently contended by the Educational Society that in view of the relief claimed by the society, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is true that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the said suit claiming minority status for their educational society. It is highlighted by the petitioner that when granting permission by the concerned educational authority, the first respondent-Society has made an application contending that it is a non-minority Educational Agency and also given declaration that it will abide by all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They also paid the required endowment as per the statutory provisions. They also paid the required endowment as per the statutory provisions. Since the management is a non-minority management, temporary and permanent staff have executed agreement in Form VII-A and VII-B as prescribed in Rule 15 of the said Rules which is a statutory requirement to be followed by all minority schools. It is specifically stated by the petitioner that himself and other staff have already signed Form VII-B agreement; accordingly all the protections given under the Act and Rules are available to the staff members of Sridevi Girls Higher Secondary School, Kollemcode. Apart from the above factual information, Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel has also brought to my notice various writ petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff with regard to disciplinary action taken against them as well as non-disbursement of salary to them. Apart from the said factual position, the learned Senior Counsel has brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.270, Higher Education Department, dated 17.6.1998. As per the said Government Order, the Educational Institutions claiming minority status have to apply only to the Government which alone is empowered to grant such status if it is proved that the object of the Institution is for the interests of the concerned minority. By pointing out the said Government Order, it is stated that the second appeal itself has become infructuous and if the Educational Society wants minority status regarding their Institution, they have to approach the Government only by placing acceptable materials. 7. In spite of the above factual position, Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, by pointing out a Judgment of K.Sampath, J., reported in S.Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999)2 M.L.J.690: (1999)3 C.T.C. 335 , would contend that the petitioner herein cannot compel the plaintiff to make him as a party in his suit. No doubt, in that decision, the learned Judge after referring to various decisions of the other High Courts as well as Supreme Court, set aside the order passed by the lower court impleading the District Forest Officer in a suit filed by the petitioner therein. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in that decision. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in that decision. Since the District Collector who is the Head Administrator of the said District is already a party in the said proceedings, and the Forest Officer who is subordinate and under the control of the Collector, the learned Judge after holding that the District Forest Officer has no legal interest in the subject matter of the suit has set aside the order passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge impleading the District Forest Officer. In the light of the peculiar factual position in that case, I am of the view that the said decision is not helpful to the claim made by the learned counsel for the first respondent. On the other hand, Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on a decision reported in Yogendra Nath Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1999 All. 356. In a similar circumstance, learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, after referring to a Division Bench decision of the very same High Court has held that in a matter like this, namely, regarding the claim for minority status of an Educational Institution, upheld the order impleading the parents of students and ex-students. No doubt, the said decision arose in a writ proceedings. In that case, the order granting minority status was questioned by students and parents. After referring to a Division Bench decision of the same Court in Shobh Nath Singh v. Director of Education, U.P., (1991)2 UPL S.E.C. 1174, (Writ Petition Nos.53 of 1977 and 18398 of 1988), the learned Judge has observed thus: “A firm finding was recorded that the students, ex-students or parents of students as well as teachers have locus standi to challenge the order of the Director of Education passed under Sec.16-FF of the Act declaring an institution as minority institution. The present petitioners have a special interest in the subject matter, i.e., the status of the institution-whether it is minority institution or otherwise-for the simple reasons that the minority institution enjoys several benefits and is exempt from the operation of several regulatory provisions contained in the various enactments by which protection is extended to the members of the society who are running the institution, its office bearers, members of the teaching and non-teaching staff and the students. If the petitioners have some concern deeper than that of a busy body, they cannot be told off at the gates although whether the issue raised by them is justiceable, may still remain to be considered. In the light of the above decisions, particularly direct Division Bench decision of this Court in Sobhnath Singh’s case, (1991)2 Supreme 1174 as well as the observations made in the special appeal filed against the order dismissing the present petition, I take the view that the petitioners have not only the locus, but the writ petition itself is maintainable to consider and determine the controversy raised under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.” As stated earlier, though the said decision has been rendered in a writ proceedings, with respect I am of the view that the conclusion of the learned Judge supports and is applicable to the claim of the petitioner herein. I have already stated that the teaching and non-teaching staff have filed several writ petitions questioning the action/orders of the Educational Society. I have also observed in the earlier part of my order that the Educational Society was granted permission on the declaration that they will run as non-minority institution and abide by all the provisions of the Act and Rules. The petitioner and other staff members have also executed required statutory agreement. In such circumstances, the petitioner being a staff member of the Educational Society even though is not a necessary party, I am of the view that he is a proper party for disposal of the above second appeal. I am satisfied that by impleading the petitioner herein, it would be possible for him to highlight the grievance of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Educational Society while deciding the issue in question. 8. Net result, C.M.P.No.18582 of 1999 is allowed as prayed for.