DWARIKA RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is taken up for consideration in the Chamber under provisions of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners seeks review of the order dated 11.04.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3351 of 2010 (Dwarika Ram and others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on the grounds that firstly, the name of the petitioners are registered with the Employment Exchange Office, even then their names were not sponsored for selection and appointment. Secondly, there was no need to implead selected candidates as party respondents as the controversy of appointment on 42 posts of peon was well within the knowledge of the selected candidates as it was mentioned in the order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure R-P/3) that it was subject to outcome of W.P.(S) No. 3351/2010 and lastly, the respondents have not disclosed the reasons asto why the 42 posts of peon were not advertised in the local newspaper alongwith the advertisement dated 30.11.2010.

(3.) ALL the issues raised hereinabove, have been considered by this Court and it was held that even if the appointment order indicates that the appointment was subject to final outcome of the writ petition, that does not mean that the persons who would be vitally and substantially affected, should not be arrayed as party as they had right to put forward their cases as they were going to be affected substantially. Thus, the petition was not dismissed only on account of non- joinder of the necessary party. It was further held that the names of the petitioners were not sponsored by the employment exchange, i.e. on merit also.