M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.10.2002, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition by which respondent No. 6 has been reinstated in service.

3. In our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19069 of 2002, Vijay Prakash Dixit v. State of U. P., decided on 10.5.2002. In that decision, this Court took the view that in view of the decision of the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta v. Government of India, 1995 SCC (L & S) 210, the contrary view of the two-Judge Bench decision in Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1655, is not good law. Hence, a third party cannot challenge the impugned order since it is matter between the employer and respondent No. 6.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.