CM-7641-LPA-2025 IN/AND -1- LPA-1389-2023 (O&M) 104+221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-7641-LPA-2025 IN/AND LPA-1389-2023 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.07.2026 BALJIT SINGH ......APPELLANT Vs. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa & Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocates, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Swapan Shorey, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) CM-7641-LPA-2025 (i) The application for placing on record the replication to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, along with certain documents as Annexures P-7 to P-10, is allowed, as prayed for. (ii) The replication along with the aforesaid documents is taken on record as Annexures P-7 to P-10, subject to all just exceptions. Office is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. LPA-1389-2023 (O&M) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 11768 of 1993, NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-7641-LPA-2025 IN/AND -2- LPA-1389-2023 (O&M) titled Baljit Singh and another vs. The Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 3 seeking promotion to the posts of Agricultural Sub-Inspectors from the date their juniors were promoted to the said posts has been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the writ petition was liable to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, liberty ought to have been granted to the appellant to file a fresh writ petition for impleading the necessary parties. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. 4. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of necessary parties, whose rights are likely to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, a writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabody Verma and others vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1985 AIR 167, wherein it was held as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “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 NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-7641-LPA-2025 IN/AND -3- LPA-1389-2023 (O&M) 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.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 5. However, it is equally well settled that where a writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, the petitioner ought to be granted liberty to institute a fresh writ petition after impleading such necessary parties. 6. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that while the writ petition shall remain dismissed, liberty is granted to the appellant to file a fresh writ petition by impleading all the necessary parties, keeping in view the relief claimed therein. 7. The present Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 06, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document