Orissa High Court
Sourava Rout And Another vs Odisha Legislative Assembly on 10 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23353 of 2023
Sourava Rout and another .... Petitioners
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Odisha Legislative Assembly, .... Opposite Parties
Khurda and another
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate
(for Opposite Party No.1)
Mrs. U. Padhi, ASC
(for Opposite Party No.2)
Mr. S.D. Ray, Advocate
(For Intervener)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
I.A. No.9291 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 08.09.2025 Date of Order: 10.10.2025
Order No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 1. This I.A. has been filed by the Applicant-
Intervener to implead him as a necessary party to the Writ
Petition on the ground that, he is an unsuccessful
candidate in the same selection process for the post of
Reporters, in pursuance to the Advertisement dated
26.01.2021 by the Odisha Legislative Assembly. It has been
prayed so on the ground that he had also preferred W.P.(C)
No.6171 of 2022 for quashing of the entire selection
process, including the selection of the present Petitioners.
1.1 It is also the case of the Applicant-Intervener that,
the present Petitioners have deliberately not made him a
party to the writ petition in order to seek a favourable order
behind his back.
1.2 Further, it is the case of the Applicant-Intervener
that, after an analogous hearing of both the Writ Petitions
i.e. W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 31988 of
2021, this Court directed the Odisha Legislative Assembly
to convene a meeting of Selection Board as per Rule 7(2) of
the Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules 1983, shortly, the Rules,
1983. Since such direction ultimately resulted in the
cancellation of selection process, the Applicant-Intervener
would be prejudiced, if any order is passed without
impleading him as a party to the present writ petition.
2. The Petitioners have filed a detailed Objection
opposing to the application for intervention stating therein
that, the Applicant-Intervener was a candidate belonging to
SEBC category, who had participated in the selection
process in pursuance to an Advertisement dated
26.01.2021, issued by the Odisha Legislative Assembly.
The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 applied under UR & SC categories
respectively, who were ultimately passed in the selection
process, whereas the Applicant-Intervener, who applied
under SCBC category, did not qualify in skill test and was
not called for viva voce test.
2.1 It is the stand of the Petitioners that, the
Applicant-Intervener had also filed an application for
intervention, i.e., I.A. No. 12585 of 2022, in W.P.(C) No.
31988 of 2021, previously filed by the Petitioners, which he
did not pursue. However, W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021 stood
allowed by this Court.
2.2 It is also the stand of the Petitioners that, the
Applicant-Intervener previously assailed the selection
process in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022 with a prayer to quash
the entire selection process, which was heard along with
W.P.(C) No. 31988 of 2021 preferred by the present
Petitioners. By a common judgment dated 19.05.2023, this
Court allowed W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, whereas
dismissed W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022. Thus, the present
attempt to intervene in W.P.(C) No.23353 of 2023 filed by
the Petitioners, challenging the cancellation of selection
process vide order dated 21.07.2023, is claimed to be
barred by the Principles of Estoppel, Waiver as well as Res-
Judicata.
2.3 Moreover, it is the stand of the Petitioners that,
the Applicant-Intervener, being a failed candidate so also
belonging to a different category, i.e., SEBC, to which the
Petitioners do not belong, has no locus standi to intervene
in a writ petition, concerning the rights of successful
candidates from other categories, especially when no relief
is being claimed against him. Further, the Applicant-
Intervener, being employed as a Junior Executive Assistant
in the Home Department, Government of Odisha since
22.09.2023, pursuing the present lis with ulterior motive to
deprive the Petitioners of their legitimate rights of being
appointed as Reporters.
3. In addition to the Objection to the application for
intervention, a Counter Affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of the Petitioners strongly refuting the Intervener's
allegation of manipulation in the selection process, on the
ground that the father of the Petitioner No.1, a retired
Deputy Secretary (Reporting), had not participated in the
selection process. Further, as per the Rules, 1983, the
Deputy Secretary (Reporting) has no role in the selection
process of Reporters.
3.1 It is the stand of the Petitioners that, the
Applicant-Intervener approached this Court in W.P(C).
No.6171 of 2022 assailing the entire selection process
seeking a fresh recruitment, basing on vague and
unsubstantiated claims, particularly the alleged dissent of
former Members of the Examination Committee after their
terms were over. Thus, any such allegation made after the
Committee has become functus officio, lacks legal sanctity
and is intended to mislead the Court.
3.2 It is also the stand of the Petitioners that, the
Intervener, having failed in the selection process, had not
initiated any timely legal action for non-inclusion of his
name in the final list of his category. Rather he challenged
the appointment of the Petitioners, who belong to separate
categories. The said challenge, being filed after almost one
year, also suffers from delay and laches. Further, the
Intervener, neither being a necessary nor a proper party in
the writ petition, cannot be allowed to intervene merely to
indirectly challenge the selection so also appointment of
the candidates belonging to different categories. Since the
Petitioners are dominus litus in the writ petition, the choice
of arraying parties solely rests with them.
3.3 Moreover, the Petitioners relied on the settled
principle that, when an unsuccessful candidate challenges
the selection process, successful candidates from the same
category must be impleaded, as any order may prejudice to
the successful candidates. However, there is no law to
implead a failed candidate, who belongs to a different
category.
4. To substantiate the stand taken in the Objection
to the application for intervention, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, relying on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited
Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private
Limited and others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, in
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamata
Bisht & others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204, in Pratap
Kishore Panda & others Vs. Agni Charan Das &
others, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 789, in M.J. Exporters
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, reported in
(2021) 13 SCC 543 and in Ranjan Kumar etc. Vs. State
of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp.) 30, vehemently
opposed to the prayer for intervention.
5. Admittedly, this writ petition has been filed by
the Petitioners assailing the Memo No 4581(3)/L.A,
Bhubaneswar dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Selection
Board of the Opposite Party No.1, vide which the entire
selection process for the post of Reporters ,pursuant to the
advertisement dated 26.01.2021, stood cancelled, so also a
prayer has been made seeking enforcement of the select list
dated 29.06.2021, as well as for issuance of appointment
letters in favour of the Petitioners to the post of Reporters
in Odisha Legislative Assembly, pursuant to advertisement
dated 26.01.2021 and as per select list dated 29.06.2021.
6. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ
petition is that, on 26.01.2021, the Opposite Party No.1,
i.e., the Secretary, Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar, issued an advertisement for recruitment to
the post of Reporters in Pay Level-10 (Rs. 44,900-
1,42,400) under ORSP Rules, 2017 against 7 numbers of
vacancies i.e. for Gen (M)-l, Gen.(W)-2, SEBC-1, SC-1, ST-1
and ST(W)-1. The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 applied under UR
and SC Category respectively for the said post. After
scrutiny, they were selected for the Type Test held on
07.03.2021 and called for the short-hand Skill Test
(English & Odia) as well as Viva Voce (Certificate
Verification) on 19.04.2021 and 22.04.2021 respectively.
The Petitioners No. 1 & 2 ranked 1 and 2 respectively in
the selection process, as notified by the Deputy Secretary,
Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Bhubaneswar,
vide Notice No.4641/LA dt.29.06.2021.
6.1 However, vide Order dated 03.10.2021, the
meeting of Selection Board, scheduled to be held on
04.10.2021, was postponed arbitrarily and contrary to the
OLA Rules, 1983.
7. The present Petitioners preferred W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 with a prayer to direct the Opposite
Party No.1 to issue appointment orders in favour of them
for the post of Reporters as per the merit/selection list, as
recommended by the Examination Committee as well as
Assembly Secretariat. The present Applicant-Intervener,
who had applied for the post of Reporters, preferred W.P.(C)
No.6171 of 2022 challenging the Advertisement dated
26.01.2021 with a prayer to quash the entire selection
process so also selection of the present Petitioners with a
further prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to hold a
fresh selection process and in the event he is found
suitable, to appoint him as a Reporter with all
consequential service and financial benefits. Both the said
writ petitions were heard together and disposed of vide
common judgment dated 19.05.2023. Operative portion of
the said judgment is reproduced below:
"49. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts
as well as law, this court is of the considered
view that the Opposite Parties have failed to
provide a valid justification to cancel the
selection process on the ground of sanctity and
fairness of such recruitment process. Moreover,
the documents or the note of dissent basing on
which such allegations were made have not yet
seen the light of the day and the same was
never produced before this Court despite specific
direction by this Court. Therefore, this Court is
well within its discretion to draw an interference
that such a document never existed. Moreover,
no steps whatsoever having been taken to
conduct any sort for enquiry to find out the
veracity of such allegation made by any of the
unsuccessful candidates. As a result this
Court has not hesitation to hold that the
opposite parties have failed to provide any
valid/legal justification in coming to a
conclusion to cancel the recruitment
process after almost one and half years
after the final select list was recommended
by the Examination Committee.
Accordingly, this Court directs the Opposite
Party No.1 to immediately convene a
meeting of the Selection Board in terms of
Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1983. The names of the
selected candidates which were up-loaded
in the website of OLA dated 28.09.2021 be
placed before such Selection Board.
Thereafter, necessary action be taken by
the Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to the
decision of the Selection Board and the
Hon'ble Speaker within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of a
copy of this judgment. It is further made clear
that in the event the Selection Board gives its
concurrence to the list of selected candidates,
then the Opposite Parties shall do well to giving
the petitioners appointment against the posts of
reporters pursuant to the advertisement under
Annexure-1.
50. In view of the aforesaid judgment
passed in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, the
writ application filed by Satya Narayan
Maharana bearing W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022
which was heard analogously along with
the present writ application is devoid of
merit and accordingly, the same hereby
dismissed.
51. Accordingly, the writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021 stand allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment,
the present Opposite Party No.1 preferred W.A. No.1458 of
2023 challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in
W.P(C) No.31988 of 2021 whereas, the Applicant-Intervener
namely, Satya Narayan Maharana preferred Writ Appeal
No.1343 of 2023 challenging the order dated 19.05.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022, vide which his writ
petition stood dismissed.
9. As it seems from the record, despite such
observation/direction given by the coordinate Bench vide
the common judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021, the Selection Board, vide the impugned
memo dated 21.07.2023, rejected the appointment letters
issued in favour of the Petitioners for the post of Reporters.
Immediately thereafter, Writ Appeal No.1458 of 2023,
preferred by the present Opposite Party No.1, also stood
disposed of on 04.08.2023 as become infructuous in view
of the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Selection
Board during pendency of the said Writ Appeal. Thereafter,
Writ Appeal No.1343 of 2023 preferred by the present
Applicant-Intervener also stood dismissed. Both the orders
passed in W.A. No.1343 of 2023 & W.A. No.1458 of 2023
are reproduced below:
"Order dated 04.08.2023 passed in
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Mr. A. Kejriwal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has submitted the
Notice No.O.E.188/2023/ 4580/LA dated 21st
July, 2023 issued by the OSD-cum-Secretary to
the Acting Speaker of Odisha Legislative
Assembly reads, inter alia as follows:
"...basing on the recommendation of
the Selection Board dated 15.07.2023
and approval of Hon'ble Acting
Speaker dated 19.07.2023 the entire
selection process for the posts of
Reporters pursuant to the
advertisement dated 26.01.2021 is
hereby cancelled."
3. Mr. Subrat Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents has
also acceded that for cancellation of the entire
selection process, the writ appeal has become
infructuous. In the emerged circumstances, the
writ appeal stands dismissed as infructuous.
4. A copy of the said notice dated 21st
July, 2023 is taken on record."
"Order dated 06.03.2024 passed in
This matter is taken up through hybrid
mode.
2. A judgment of a learned Single Judge of
this Court dated 19.05.2023 rendered in W.P.(C)
No.31988 of 2021 (Sourav Rout and another
v. The Odisha Legislative Assembly,
Bhubaneswar and others) is under challenge
in the present intra-Court appeal.
3. From the materials on record, it
transpires that the dispute relates to selection
and appointment to the post of Reporter in
Odisha Legislative Assembly. In the said
selection process, petitioners-Sourav Rout and
Biswajyoti Behera claimed to have been
selected. Satya Narayan Maharana, the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022, who had
also participated in selection process, was
unsuccessful. Sourav Rout and another
approached this Court by filing the writ petition
with a grievance that the Selection Board of the
Odisha Legislative Assembly was not taking
follow up action in the matter. On the other hand,
the petitioner-Satya Narayan Maharana
questioned the legality of the selection process
itself by filing a writ petition registered as
W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022.
4. Both the writ petitions were heard
together and came to be disposed of by common
judgment dated 19.05.2023, which is under
challenge in the present appeal.
5. It has been pointed out by Mr. Subir
Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Odisha Legislative Assembly-
Respondent No.1 that during the pendency of
this appeal, the Selection Board of the Odisha
Legislative Assembly has taken a decision to
cancel the entire process of selection and
proceed for selection process afresh for
appointment to the post of Reporter. It is
noteworthy that a writ appeal was preferred on
behalf of the Odisha Legislative Assembly also
against the judgment under appeal, giving rise to
W.A. No.1458 of 2023, which came to be
withdrawn on 04.08.2023 because of the
subsequent development, i.e., cancellation of the
selection process itself.
6. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the present
intra-Court appeal, who were writ petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, have filed writ
petition before this Court assailing the decision
of the Odisha Legislative Assembly cancelling
the process of selection and to start a selection
process afresh for filling up the post of Reporter.
7. In view of the subsequent developments,
in our opinion, the questions involved in the
present appeal have become academic. This
appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. We make it clear that we have not gone
into the disputes raised in the present appeal
and no observation made in the present order
shall be treated to be an opinion on the merits of
the case."
10. The Advertisement dated 26.01.2021 issued by
the Secretary, Odisha Legislative Assembly Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar for recruitment to the post of Reporters
against seven numbers of vacancies i.e. for Gen (M)-1, Gen
(W)-2, SEBC-1, SC-1, ST-1 and ST(W)-1. Admittedly, the
present Petitioners applied for the vacancies for the post of
Reporters meant for UR category and SC category
respectively. Whereas the Applicant-Intervener applied for
the said post under SEBC category. The present Petitioners
were duly selected in their respective category and were
invited for the short hand skill test (English & Odia) and
Viva Voce (Certificate Verification) for the said post vide
notice dated 16.04.2021. The Applicant-Intervener having
failed in the said selection process for the category of
SEBC, did not initiate any timely legal action for non-
inclusion of his name in the final list of his category.
Rather, he challenged the appointment of the Petitioners,
who belong to separate categories and W.P.(C) No.6171 of
2022 was preferred by him almost after one year of such
selection. That apart, though the Applicant-Intervener also
filed a similar application for intervention, i.e., I.A.
No.12585 of 2022, in W.P.(C) No.31988 of 2021, previously
filed by the present Petitioners, he did not pursue the said
I.A. before disposal of the said writ petition.
11. Law is well settled that an unsuccessful candidate
if challenges the selection process, the successful
candidate from the same category must be impleaded as
party to the said proceeding. However, there is no law to
implead a failed/unsuccessful candidate, who belongs to a
different category, that too, when the selection process is
not under challenge. The present writ petition has been
preferred by the Petitioners for the alleged illegal
order/memo passed by the Selection Board, vide which the
entire selection process for the post of Reporters, pursuant
to advertisement dated 26.01.2021, stood cancelled.
Admittedly, the present Applicant-Intervener, as a
disqualified candidate in W.P(C) No.6171 of 2022, never
challenged the action of the Opposite Party No.1, vide
which he was excluded from the said selection process.
Further, in the written notes of submission filed by the
Applicant-Intervener, in para-3, it has been stated as
follows:
"3. That, Legislative Assembly against the
aforesaid common judgment dated 19.05.2023
filed a writ Appeal i.e. W.A. No.1458/2023.
Pursuant to the said common judgment, the
Odisha Legislative Assembly passed an order
dated 21.07.2023 in Memo No.4581(3)/L.A OLA-
OE-ESTT0018-2023, quashed the entire selection
process (Annexure-7, Page 230). In
consequence of this development, the
Intervener's Writ Appeal (W.A. No.1343 of
2023) became infructuous and was disposed
of without adjudication on merits, as the
intervener's purpose has already been
served."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. It is clear from the conduct of the Applicant-
Intervener so also the stand taken in the written notes of
submission submitted on behalf of the Applicant-Intervener
that his sole intention was to ensure cancellation of
selection of the present Petitioners as Reporters and he
had/has no personal grievance regarding his
disqualification to be selected as Reporter under the SEBC
category. It is further admitted that the Applicant-
Intervener is at present serving as Junior Executive
Assistant in Home Department, Government of Odisha
since 22.09.2023.
13. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd.
(supra), the Supreme Court held as follows;
"15. A "necessary party" is a person who
ought to have been joined as a party and in
whose absence no effective decree could be
passed at all by the court. If a "necessary
party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a
party who, though not a necessary party, is
a person whose presence would enable the
court to completely, effectively and
adequately adjudicate upon all matters in
dispute in the suit, though he need not be a
person in favour of or against whom the
decree is to be made. If a person is not
found to be a proper or necessary party, the
court has no jurisdiction to implead him,
against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact
that a person is likely to secure a right/interest
in a suit property, after the suit is decided
against the plaintiff, will not make such person a
necessary party or a proper party to the suit for
specific performance."
xxx xxx xxx
24. We may now give some illustrations
regarding exercise of discretion under the said
sub-rule.
24.1 If a plaintiff makes an application for
impleading a person as a defendant on the
ground that he is a necessary party, the court
may implead him having regard to the provisions
of Rules 9 and 10(2) of Order 1. If the claim
against such a person is barred by limitation, it
may refuse to add him as a party and even
dismiss the suit for non-joinder of a necessary
party.
24.2 If the owner of a tenanted property
enters into an agreement for sale of such
property without physical possession, in a suit
for specific performance by the purchaser, the
tenant would not be a necessary party. But if the
suit for specific performance is filed with an
additional prayer for delivery of physical
possession from the tenant in possession, then
the tenant will be a necessary party insofar as
the prayer for actual possession.
24.3 If a person makes an application for
being impleaded contending that he is a
necessary party, and if the court finds that he is
a necessary party, it can implead him. If the
plaintiff opposes such impleadment, then instead
of impleading such a party, who is found to be a
necessary party, the court may proceed to
dismiss the suit by holding that the applicant
was a necessary party and in his absence the
plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit.
24.4 If an application is made by a plaintiff
for impleading someone as a proper party,
subject to limitation, bona fides, etc., the court
will normally implead him, if he is found to be a
proper party. On the other hand, if a non-party
makes an application seeking impleadment as a
proper party and the court finds him to be a
proper party, the court may direct his addition as
a defendant; but if the court finds that his
addition will alter the nature of the suit or
introduce a new cause of action, it may dismiss
the application even if he is found to be a proper
party, if it does not want to widen the scope of
the specific performance suit; or the court may
direct such applicant to be impleaded as a
proper party, either unconditionally or subject to
terms. For example, if D claiming to be a co-
owner of a suit property, enters into an
agreement for sale of his share in favour
of P representing that he is the co-owner with
half-share, and P files a suit for specific
performance of the said agreement of sale in
respect of the undivided half-share, the court
may permit the other co-owner who contends
that D has only one-fourth share, to be
impleaded as an additional defendant as a
proper party, and may examine the issue
whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific
performance of the agreement in respect of half a
share or only one-fourth share; alternatively the
court may refuse to implead the other co-owner
and leave open the question in regard to the
extent of share of the defendant vendor to be
decided in an independent proceeding by the
other co-owner, or the plaintiff; alternatively the
court may implead him but subject to the term
that the dispute, if any, between the impleaded
co-owner and the original defendant in regard to
the extent of the share will not be the subject-
matter of the suit for specific performance, and
that it will decide in the suit only the issues
relating to specific performance, that is, whether
the defendant executed the agreement/contract
and whether such contract should be specifically
enforced.
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In Mamata Bisht (supra), the Supreme Court
held as follows:
"9. In case Respondent 1 wanted her
selection against the reserved category
vacancy, the last selected candidate in that
category was a necessary party and without
impleading her, the writ petition could not
have been entertained by the High Court in
view of the law laid down by nearly a
Constitution Bench of this Court in UditNarain
Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [AIR 1963
SC 786] , wherein the Court has explained the
distinction between necessary party, proper
party and pro forma party and further held that
if a person who is likely to suffer from the order
of the court and has not been impleaded as a
party has a right to ignore the said order as it
has been passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice. More so, proviso to Order 1, Rule
9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter called "CPC") provides that non-
joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly,
provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ
jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of
Section 141 CPC but the principles
enshrined therein are applicable."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In Pratap Kishore Panda (supra), the Supreme
Court held as follows;
"22. The other question to which we must
turn our attention is whether the appellants had
the locus standi to challenge the mode of
recruitment of the respondents. The High Court
has held that since they were not of the
reserved class, they did not have the locus
standi to challenge mode of recruitment of
the respondents who were of the reserved
class, on the principle that unequals cannot
be treated as equals. While we accept the
principle itself, we do not find it pertinent
to the factual scenario before us. The
unrefuted factual position is that by virtue of
their retrospective regularisation, several of the
respondents gained seniority over the
appellants. In light of the direct impact on them,
the appellants would have the locus standi to
challenge the validity of the appointment of the
respondents. However, for the reasons
discussed above, the challenge while allowed is
not successful."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In M.J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (supra),the Supreme
Court held as follows:
"15. In these circumstances, we feel that
when this issue was raised and abandoned in
the first writ petition which was dismissed as
withdrawn, the principles of constructive res
judicata which are laid down under Order 23
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
which principles are extendable to writ
proceedings as well as held by this Court
in Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [Sarguja
Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5 : 1987
SCC (Cri) 19] would squarely be applicable."
17. In Ranjan Kumar etc. (supra), the Supreme Court
held as follows;
"7. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v.
State of West Bengal and others4, this Court
approved the view expressed by the tribunal
which had opined that for absence of selected
and appointed candidates and without affording
an opportunity of hearing to them, the selection
could not be set aside.
8. In Public Service Commission,
Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht and others5
thisSC33 Court, while dealing with the
concept of necessary parties and the effect of
non-implementation of such a party in the matter
when the selection process is assailed, observed
thus:-
"....in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v.
Board of Revenue6, wherein the Court has
explained the distinction between
necessary party, proper party and pro
forma party and further held that if a
person who is likely to suffer from the order
of the court and has not been impleaded as
a party has a right to ignore the said order
as it has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Moreso,
proviso to Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called
'Code of Civil Procedure') provides that non-
joinder of necessary party be fatal.
Undoubtedly, provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure are not applicable in writ
jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of
Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure but the
principles enshrined therein are applicable.
(Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State
of Gujarat7, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v.
Nandlal Khodidas Barot8 and Sarguja
Transport Service v. STAT9)"
9. In J. S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another10 it has been held that no order can
be passed behind the back of a person adversely
affecting him and such an order, if passed, is
liable to be ignored being not binding on such a
party as the same has been passed in violation
of the principles of natural justice. It was further
held that the litigant has to ensure that the
necessary party is before the Court, be it a
plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the
proceedings will have to fail. In service
jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate
challenges the selection process, he is bound to
implead at least some of the successful
candidates in representative capacity."
18. Admittedly, the Applicant-Intervener was an
unsuccessful candidate and such disqualification was
never challenged by him in W.P.(C) No.6171 of 2022, which
also stood dismissed vide common judgment dated
19.05.2023. In the written notes of submission, as quoted
above, it has been stated that on passing of the impugned
Memo dated 21.07.2023 the Intervener's purpose has
already been served. That apart, the Intervener, who never
challenged his disqualification, belongs to a separate
category, i.e., SEBC.
19. Hence, from the discussions made above, so also
the settled position of law, as detailed above, this Court is
of the view that the Applicant-Intervener is neither a
necessary nor proper party, to be impleaded as an Opposite
Party, to the present writ petition.
20. Accordingly, the Application for intervention
stands dismissed.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Date: 10-Oct-2025 14:58:53
