JUDGMENT By the Court.—This special appeal has been filed by the appellant (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) against the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition No. 54500 of 2008, Committee of Management, Ashok Inter College, Jaunpur v. Director of Education Allahabad and others. 2. By the order dated 23.10.2008 learned Single Judge has stayed the operation of the orders dated 28.8.2008 and 28.9.2008. Vide order dated 28.8.2008 the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur has directed the petitioner to submit the bill of the arrears of salary and the papers relating to the post retiral benefit of appellant (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition). However, vide order dated 28.9.2008 the District Inspector of Schools has passed an order of single operation while exercising his power under Section 5 of the U.P. High School Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1971). The aforesaid order has been challenged on number of grounds by the appellant, however, the main ground which appealed us has although not been taken in the memo of appeal, but that appears to be most relevant ground for deciding the appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellant has orally submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as the matter relates to the payment of salary and post retiral benefit of a teacher working in the recognized intermediate college and condition of service and payment of salaries of teachers of aforesaid college is governed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Act of 1971. According to the appellant under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 it is the liability of the State Government to pay the salary of a teacher working in the recognized institution and here in the present case the State of U.P. was not impleaded as necessary party, therefore, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. 4. We have heard Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents. 5. By the consent of the parties counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 6. 4. We have heard Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents. 5. By the consent of the parties counsel, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 6. Article 300 of the Constitution of India provides that the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the name of State; Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directs that the State shall be the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the Government and Section 80 thereof directs notice to the Secretary to the State or the Collector of the district before the institution of the suit; and Rule 1 of Order 27 lays down as to who should sign the pleadings. No individual officer of the Government under the scheme of the Constitution or the Code of Civil Procedure can file a suit or initiate any proceeding in the name of the post he is holding, which is not a juristic person. 7. To appreciate the points involved it will be necessary to refer the relevant provisions of Constitution of India and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Article 300 deals with property, contract, rights, liabilities, obligations and suits which reads as follows : “300. Suits and proceedings.—(1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted. (2) If at the commencement of this Constitution— (a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and (b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be substituted for the Province or the Indian State in those proceedings.” 8. From the perusal of the provisions contained in Article 300 of the Constitution it is apparent that Government of India as well as Government of State may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India or by the name of the State respectively. 9. Section 79, C.P.C. deals with the suits : “79. Suits by or against Government.—In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be— (a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India, and (b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State.” 10. The Apex Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector and others, (2003) 3 SCC 472 , has made following observations : "12. It needs to be noted here that a legal entity—a natural person or an artificial person—can sue or be sued in his/its own name in a Court of law or a tribunal. It is merely a procedural formality but is essentially a matter or substance and considerable significance. That is why there are special provisions in the Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure as to how the Central Government or the Government of a State may sue or be sued. So also there are special provisions in regard to other juristic persons specifying as to how they can sue or be sued. In giving description of a party it will be useful to remember the distinction between misdescription or misnomer of a party and misjoinder or non-joinder of a party suing or being sued. So also there are special provisions in regard to other juristic persons specifying as to how they can sue or be sued. In giving description of a party it will be useful to remember the distinction between misdescription or misnomer of a party and misjoinder or non-joinder of a party suing or being sued. In the case of misdescription of a party, the Court may at any stage of the suit/proceedings permit correction of a cause-title so that the party before the Court is correctly described; however, a misdescription of a party will not be fatal to the maintainability of the suit/proceedings. Though Rule 9 of Order I, CPC mandates that no suit shall be defeated by reasons of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, it is important to notice that the proviso thereto clarifies that nothing in that Rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the necessary party is before the Court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the proceedings will have to fail. Rule 10 of Order I, CPC provides remedy when a suit is filed in the name of the wrong plaintiff and empowers the Court to strike out any party improperly joined or to implead a necessary party at any stage of the proceedings. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and another, AIR 1977 SC 1701 , has observed as under : Para 6 : It cannot be disputed that the appellant was a servant of the Union. It is equally indisputable that any order of removal is removal from service of the Union. The appellant challenged that order. Any order which can be passed by any Court would have to be enforced against the Union. The General Manager or any other Authority acting in the Railway Administration is as much a servant of the Union as the appellant was in the present case. Para 7 : The Union of India represents the Railway Administration. The Union carries administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. Para 7 : The Union of India represents the Railway Administration. The Union carries administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court. 12. It is worthwhile to mention that there are provisions with regard to the impleadment of necessary parties in respect of other juristic persons specifying as to how they can sue or be sued. Like Section 4 of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Act provides as under : “4. Incorporation.—Every Corporation shall be a body corporate by the name notified under Section 3 having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued." 13. From the plain reading of Section 4 it is clear that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation can sue and be sued in its own name through its Managing Director in view of Section 13 read with Section 15 of the Act, 1950. The Act,1950 does not permit other officers to represent the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Hence the Corporation can sue or be sued in its own name through Managing Director of the Corporation. 14. Likewise the Universities may sue or be sued through its Registrar. The Banks may sue or be sued through its General Manager. Corporation may sue or be sued through its Managing Director. Committee of Management of the Society may sue or be sued through its Manager. The Development authorities may sue or be sued through its Chairman. The Municipalities/Municipal Corporation and other local authorities may sue or be sued through its Chairperson/Executive officer. 15. The purpose of impleading a party is that rule of natural justice, audi­alteram-partem should be complied with. No adverse order should be passed against a party without hearing. It is for this purpose the parties are impleaded so that the party against whom some grievance is sought be heard. 16. 15. The purpose of impleading a party is that rule of natural justice, audi­alteram-partem should be complied with. No adverse order should be passed against a party without hearing. It is for this purpose the parties are impleaded so that the party against whom some grievance is sought be heard. 16. In the present case while filing the writ petition knowing it well that the order passed has to be enforced by State Government, each and every penny has to be paid from the State Exchequer and the service of the respondent No. 5 is governed under the statute the petitioner has not impleaded State Government, therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and no interim relief could be granted to the petitioner. 17. In view of that impugned order dated 23.10.2008 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and special appeal succeeds and is allowed. 18. We may clarify here that we have not addressed ourselves on the merit of the order dated 23.10.2008 and the stay order granted by learned Single Judge is set aside only for non-impleadment of necessary party. 19. However, we request the learned Single Judge, in case the petitioner amend the writ petition and implead the State of U.P. as party properly to the writ petition, the stay application may again be considered by the learned Single Judge and an appropriate order be passed subject to His Lordship’s convenience. ————