Arnav Tandon Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Item No. (S-8) CMP No.19121 of 2025 a/w CMP Nos.19929, 19930, 19932, 19934, 19935, 19936, 20052 and 20053 of 2025 in LPA No.40962 of 2025 (filing number). 27.08.2025 Present: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for the applicants, in all the applications. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State in all the applications. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Atal Medical and Research University, in all the applications. Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4, in all the applications. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Mr. Mukul Sood, Mukul Sharma and Mr. Tejsavi Dogra, Advocates, for the intervener in all the applications, except CMP No.20413 of 2025. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant- respondent No.5/proposed respondent in CMP No.20410 of 2025. The applicants/appellants being aggrieved against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.12045 of 2025 titled Ms. Anika Butail Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 29.07.2025 alongwith connected matters, has preferred an application bearing CMP No.19121 of 2025, for leave to appeal not being party before the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also preferred an application bearing CMP No.20123 of 2025 for impleadment of all the writ petitioners, keeping in view the fact that there was a common judgment, which was decided with the consent of the counsels for the parties on the common issue of law involved. 2. On 11.08.2025, we had passed an interim order and also directed the applicant to file an appropriate application for impleadment of the other writ petitioners also. Resultantly, the said exercise has been carried out. It is pertinent to notice that one of the writ petitioners, namely-Tanvi Thakur has filed a separate application bearing CMP No.20410 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for being impleaded as respondent. The other writ petitioners have filed applications bearing CMP Nos.19929, 19932, 19934 and 20052 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC for being impleaded as intervenors and they have also filed replies to the application objecting for their impleadment as respondents to CMP No.20123 of 2025, on account of separate appeals having not been filed. 3. We have already noticed in our interim order dated 11.08.2025, which need not be repeated that the reliance was placed upon the judgment, which had been directed not to be treated as a precedent by the Apex Court and therefore the Apex Court has held differently than what the learned Single Judge has directed. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the issue is common and affecting the admission process of large number of students, who would be adversely affected on account of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the application for leave to appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that there is specific averment made in the grounds of the appeal by the applicant also that he is not filing separate appeals on account of the common judgment passed and on account of that he has filed the application for impleadment bearing CMP No.20123 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 6. In the said application another set of four applicants have also been sought to be impleaded as appellants since they would sail in the same boat as appellant No.1 and would be adversely affected by the judgment of learned Single judge, which has also been opposed by filing the reply by the writ petitioners. 7. We thus deem it fit to allow the application bearing CMP No.20123 of 2025, since the interests of the persons sought to be impleaded has been adversely affected by our interim order and since the judgment passed in the lead case as such is now subject matter of consideration, which has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the intervenors. 8. Amended memo of parties filed by the applicants/appellants is taken on record. 9. Keeping in view the above, since the writ petitioners have been impleaded as respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the applications bearing CMP Nos.19929, 19932, 19934 and 20052 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC are rendered infructuous. 10. Another reasons, which would allow this course of action is on account of the fact that from the pleadings of the applications and the replies filed, it is apparent that even the State and the University is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge and the respective counsels have informed us that the separate appeals have already been filed against the judgment in question. 11. Resultantly, that is another reason for us to allow the applications for impleadment, as intervenors and all the parties have to be given adequate opportunity to be heard and the matters have been decided in the presence of all, keeping in view the principle of “audi alteram partem” the principle of natural justice. 12. To come up for consideration on 11.09.2025 alongwith the connected appeals to be filed on the issue and whether the order dated 11.08.2025 is liable to be modified in view of filing of CMP Nos.19930, 19935, 19936 and 20053 of 2025, by the private respondents. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 27th August, 2025 (munish thakur)