1 / 8 2025:CGHC:19284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2926 of 2025 1 Shekhar Suman S/o Mahendra Prasad Yadav Aged About 23 Years Makhmargo Birni, Village- Karri, Post- Manjhiladih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Bhawan Premises No-04-Mar, Plot-Af-Iii Action Area-1a New Town Rajhat, Kolkata (Wb) 700156 2 South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The Chief Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 3 General Manager (P/mp) Secl, Seepat Road, Sarakanda Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 4 Edcil, Through It's Chairperson Cum Managing Director Edcil House, 18 A, Swctor-16a, Noida Noida-201301 (U.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ SECL : Shri Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.30 11:32:18 +0530 2 / 8 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is challenging the merit list of the Computer Based Test (CBT) pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.01.2023, conducted by SECL for the post of Mining Sirdar T&S Grade C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner participated in the CBT conducted by the SECL for the post of Mining Sirdar T&S Grade C. He further submits that provisional merit list of candidates was published on 14.03.2024 and objections were invited. He further submits that there was ambiguity in the questions and the marks of all the candidates were revised. He submits that due to ambiguity on the part of the respondent authority the petitioner has been deprived from selection for the post of Mining Sirdar T&S Grade C and therefore prays to revise the merit list considering the marks of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment order for the post of Mining Sirdar T&S Grade C pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.01.2023 has already been issued on 05.03.2025 and submits that the appointed candidates needs to be impleaded as they are necessary party. He further submits that 3 / 8 non-joinder of the parties in the proceedings before this court cannot be accepted and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents. 5. In the matter of Ranjan Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187 supreme court has held that :- 4. On a perusal of the orders impugned, we find that only 40 persons were made respondents before the High Court and hardly a few appointees filed applications for intervention. It is well settled in law that no adverse order can be passed against persons who were not made parties to the litigation. In this context, we may refer with profit to the authority in Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and Others wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances which had been struck down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the provisions therein were violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In that context, a question arose whether the termination of the services of the appellants and the petitioners therein as secondary school teachers and intermediate college lecturers following upon the High Court judgment was valid without making the said appointees as parties. Learned Judges observed that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from 4 / 8 two serious, though not incurable, defects; the core defect was that of non- joinder of necessary parties, for respondents to the Sangh’s petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers and those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties — not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. Thereafter the Court ruled thus: - “The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide 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 by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh’s writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.” 5. In the case at hand neither any rule nor regulation was challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at the time of selection and appointment there was no rule or regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart from that the persons who were impleaded, 5 / 8 were not treated to be in the representative capacity. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities. 6. In Indu Shekhar Sigh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others it has been held thus: - “There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority.” 7. In Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission and Others after referring to Prabodh Verma (Supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), the Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC or the principles analogous thereto all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. It was further observed that the number of selected candidates was not many and there was no difficulty for the appellant to implead them as parties in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the appellant therein. 8. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others , 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. 9. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Others this Court, while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of 6 / 8 non-implementation of such a party in the matter when the selection process is assailed, observed thus: - “....in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Board of Revenue 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 CPC, 1908 (hereinafter called 'Code of Civil Procedure') 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 Code of Civil Procedure but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat[7], Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot[8] and Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT[9])” 10. In J.S. Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 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. 7 / 8 11. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors. it has been ruled thus: “Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Kumar and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the Appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant.” 12. Recently in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal it has been opined that: - “Despite the indefatigable effort, we are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid preponement, for once the Respondents are promoted, the juniors who have been promoted earlier would become juniors in the promotional cadre, and they being not arrayed as parties in the lis, an adverse order cannot be passed against them as that would go against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice.” 13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are disposed to think that in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners. 6. It is not disputed by either parties that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.01.2023, appointment order has been issued to the selected candidates on 05.03.2025 and in absence of selected candidates, the select list cannot be scrutinized. Thus, no adverse order can be passed against persons who were 8 / 8 not made parties to the litigation. 7. In view of settled proposition of law that a necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective order could be passed by the Court. As it has been held that if a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the case itself is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti