JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 08.07.2013 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1144 of 2013, which was preferred by this appellant for being joined as an intervenor in W.P.(C) no. 327 of 2013, had been dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the proposed intervenor. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are original writ petitioners but, the fact remains that this appellant had preferred the intervention application mainly for the reason that he was given a land in the year 1930, orally, by the office of Accountant General, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, and since then the said land is belonging to this appellant. It has further been submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are running the school in question which, in fact, should be closed down. Therefore, an application was preferred by this appellant under Rule 12 of Jharkhand Free and Mandatory Children Education Rules, 2011, and on the basis of the application preferred by this appellant order was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi to close down the school. The said order was challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in W.P.( C) No. 327 of 2013, without joining this appellant as party respondent and, thus, interlocutory application no. 1144 of 2013 was preferred by this appellant for being joined as an intervenor which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred, mainly on the ground that on the basis of the application preferred by this appellant, the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012 was passed and as such, this appellant, if not a necessary party, is surely a proper party in the writ petition. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed and this appellant may be permitted to be joined as an intervenor in W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that since 2003, this appellant is not in the management of the school at all. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that since 2003, this appellant is not in the management of the school at all. In fact, respondent no.4 is a Secretary of Vidya Vikash Samiti, a registered society and respondent no.5 is the Headmistress of the said school, have challenged the order of closing down the school because of several reasons which have been stated in the memo of W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013. So far as presentIt has further been submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 that there may be a claim of this appellant about the fact that he should be given the management of Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir but, it is altogether a separate issue. So far as closing down of the school is concerned, the order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, and, therefore, it is challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 who are managing the affairs of the Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir, which is being run by Vidya Vikash Samiti, a registered society. At whose instigation the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi had passed the order, which is impugned in W.P.(C) no. 327 of 2013 is not a material aspect at all. It may be at the instigation of this appellant but, respondent nos. 4 and 5 being the original writ petitioners have challenged the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi and, therefore, this appellant who is claiming to be a driving force of the wrong order passed for closing down the school, is not a necessary party nor is a proper party. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitted that he has no much objection if this appellant is joined as a party respondent. Otherwise also, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi whose order has been challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition, will take all care in the writ petition by filing proper affidavit or by arguing the case nicely. 5. Otherwise also, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi whose order has been challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition, will take all care in the writ petition by filing proper affidavit or by arguing the case nicely. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, mainly for the reason that it was ordered by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi vide order dated 19.12.2012 that recognition will not be given to Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir, which was challenged in the W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013, preferred by respondent nos. 4 and 5. 6. It further appears that Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir is running since last one decade and already one application had been preferred by the original petitioners for its recognition in the year 2005. The school in question is being run by Vidya Vikash Samiti, which is a registered society. 7. It also appears that the land, in question, upon which Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir is situated, was given to this appellant by way of an oral gift by the office of the Accountant General, approximately in the year 1930, upon which, super structure is being constructed by this appellant which is known as Vidya Sagar Balika Vidya Mandir and this appellant has preferred an application under Rule 12 of Jharkhand Free and Mandatory Children Education Rules, 2011, not to give recognition to any other person and, therefore, he should be joined as a party respondent to the writ petition. This argument is not accepted by this Court, mainly for the reason that the school in question is being run by Vidya Vikash Samiti, which is a registered society since 2003 and for its recognition an application was preferred in the year 2005. There is also a dispute about the ownership and title upon the property between this appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the original writ petition respondent nos. 4 and 5 have challenged the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi dated 19th December, 2012. At whose behest the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi had passed the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012, which was challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the original writ petition respondent nos. 4 and 5 have challenged the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi dated 19th December, 2012. At whose behest the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi had passed the impugned order dated 19th December, 2012, which was challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in W.P.(C ) No. 327 of 2013, is not to be looked into. It may be at the instigation of this appellant, but, that does not mean that “such type of instigators, who are giving wisdom to the government” should be joined as party respondents. These injectors of the wisdom are neither necessary nor proper party. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi is capable enough to define his order dated 19th December, 2012, as he is acting on behalf of the Government and the mighty Government will take its own defence in the writ petition, if its order is correct and legal. There is no need of this injector of wisdom to be joined as party respondent because, unnecessarily the matter will be prolonged and other types of disputes will be opened in the court, like ownership of the land in question, ownership of the super structure, management of the school etc. For resolving these types of disputes, the appellant is free to file suit before the appropriate forum. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1144 of 2013, preferred by this appellant for being joined as intervenor in W.P.(C) No. 327 of 2013, vide order dated 8th July, 2013. Thus, there being no substance, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.