Sr. No. 77 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No. 3581/2025 Atul Sharma S/o Sh. Khem Raj Sharma R/o VPO Gurah Mundian Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate V/s 1. Yash Paul S/o Sh. Lekh Raj, R/o Hiranagar Kathua, Presently posted at Horticulture Development Office, Barnoti, District Kathua, UT of J&K. …..Respondent(s) 2.Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to Govt. Agriculture Production Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu 3. Director, Horticulture Department, Jammu 4. Chief Horticulture Officer, Kathua 5. Vice Chancellor, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Jammu ..... Performa Respondents Through:- Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 18.12.2025 1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.12.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in OA No. 1902/2025, titled Yash Paul vs. UT of J&K and others, whereby the learned Tribunal, while issuing notice to the respondents, has granted an interim stay on the selection list dated 28.11.2025 issued by proforma respondent No. 2 for undergoing the B.Sc. Horticulture Course, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is working as Horticulture Technician Grade- IV (HTG-IV). Vide Government Order No. 547-JK(APD) of 2025 dated 28.11.2025, sanction was accorded to the nomination of the petitioner for undergoing the B.Sc. Horticulture Degree Course from Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu, for the academic session 2025-26, amongst 20 nominated candidates. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order and Director Horticulture Jammu’s endorsement No. Adm/NG/13562-570 dated 29.11.2025, the petitioner was relieved by respondent No. 4 on 29.11.2025 and was directed to report to respondent No. 3 for further course of action. 4. In compliance thereof, the petitioner reported at SKUAST Jammu on 01.12.2025 and was granted provisional admission/registration, bearing Registration No. J-25-Horti-65. Thereafter, the petitioner joined classes on 03.12.2025. 5. Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal, questioning the selection list dated 28.11.2025 and sought a direction for consideration of his claim for nomination to undergo B.Sc. Horticulture Course for the Session 2025-26. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, stayed the operation of the said selection list insofar as it relates to the petitioner, without considering the fact that the petitioner was neither impleaded as party nor his nomination has been specifically challenged by respondent No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a necessary and affected party in the Original Application before the Tribunal, and in his absence no adverse or prejudicial order could have been passed. The impugned order, to the extent it affects the petitioner, is therefore void, unenforceable, and legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner fully satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under Government Order No. 68-Agri of 2016, and his nomination for the said course was made strictly in accordance with the governing rules and policy. 7. It is contended that the impugned interim order has resulted in serious civil consequences for the petitioner, as he is being prevented from attending classes, and the examinations are scheduled to commence from the first week of January 2026, thereby jeopardizing his academic career and service prospects. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The only issue which arises for consideration is whether an order can be passed adversely affecting the right of a person without impleading him as a party and without providing him an opportunity of hearing. The order impugned in this petition has stayed the selection list qua the petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The petitioner is a necessary and affected party and no adverse order could be passed without impleading him as party. 10. It is trite law that the principle of non-joinder, though originating from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies with equal force to writ proceedings. An order passed in writ jurisdiction without impleading an affected or necessary party is liable to be invalidated on that ground alone. 11. In case titled Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed as under:- “A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non- joinder of necessary parties.” 12. In case titled Ramrao vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn., 2004(2) SCC 76, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 27 has observed that “an order issued against a person without impleading him as a party and, thus, without giving him an opportunity of hearing must be held to be bad in law.” 13. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled J. S. Yadav vs. State of U.P and Anr, (2011) 6 SCC 570, has held as follows: “31. 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.” 14. In the light of the facts obtaining in the present case and the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, whose nomination and admission to the B.Sc. Horticulture Course were directly affected by the impugned order, was a necessary party to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The passing of an interim order to his prejudice, without impleading him or affording an opportunity of hearing, cannot be sustained as the same offends the principles of natural justice. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in OA No. 1902/2025, insofar as it relates to and affects the petitioner, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration of the interim application after impleading the petitioner as a party-respondent and after granting him an opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law. 16. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of, accordingly. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 18.12.2025 Bir*