HIRA LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all those persons who were selected in the impugned selection, have not been impleaded as party, which, in my opinion, should have been impleaded and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the objection being raised by the respondents that they are necessary party. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be granted some time for impleading those persons apart from three persons who have already been impleaded in the writ petition.

(2.) Suffice it to say that this Court vide order dated 20.7.2001, rejected the second application for impleadment as withdrawn on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he may be permitted to file a fresh application. The prayer was allowed in these words :

(3.) The aforesaid order was passed on 20th July, 2001 and thereafter the case was listed on 3rd August, 2001, 2nd May, 2002 and now it was listed on 5th August, 2002 and again today, i.e., 7th August, 2002 but no such application has come forward though time was specified as one week from the date of order.