JUDGMENT By Court.- The Office objection regarding maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal is overruled. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents also heard learned counsel for the Intervenor, who has moved application to intervene the matter. So far as the present Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, we do not find any necessity of the presence of the Intervenor because of the reasons that writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed along with another W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2012 under impression that the petitioner's writ petition W.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2012 also involves the same dispute which was the dispute in W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2012, wherein the rival persons are claiming the Chairmanship of Managing Committee of Swami Ram Krishna Paramhans Teachers Training College, Karmatanr, Bokaro. Relating to same dispute one another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3523 of 2012 was also filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 12th September, 2012. One Title Suit No. 600 of 2011 was found to be pending in the Court of Sub Judge, I, Ranchi. In that situation, the writ petition of the petitioner along with W.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2012 has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inadvertently the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2012 has been dismissed which was filed by the students and they are not claiming for the post of Chairman or Secretary in the Managing Committee of the said College. Their prayer was only confined to holding of the examination. 4. Counsel for the Intervenor submitted that they are not the students of the College in question. 5. We are not concerned with such dispute, as seems to have been projected by the learned counsel for the Intervenor. However, it is not in dispute that in W.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2012, the dispute was not with respect to the post of the Chairman or the Secretary in the Committee of Swami Ram Krishna Paramhans Teachers Training (B.Ed.) College, Karmatand, Bokaro and the writ petition was relating to the holding of the examination. 6. Therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed. The order dated 18th December, 2012, pertaining to W.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2012 is set aside. 6. Therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed. The order dated 18th December, 2012, pertaining to W.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2012 is set aside. However, it is made clear that none of our observation be treated as the observation in favour of the writ petition or the respondents or against the intervenor. The intervenor admittedly was not impleaded as party in the writ petition and, therefore, we are leaving this issue open and if any application has been filed by the intervenor in the writ petition, that will be considered by the learned single Judge. 7. The writ petition (W.P. [C] No. 7382 of 2012) is restored to its original number, which may be placed before the learned single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed accordingly and remanded to the learned single Judge. Appeal allowed.