PRADEEP KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody is present on behalf of the Union of India. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Vinod Swaroop.

(2.) On behalf of the Central Board of Secondary Education Sri H. N. Pandey has filed an application under Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules stating therein that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of the Board, which is a necessary party to the writ proceedings. Along with the said application, the Central Board of Secondary Education has also filed its counter-affidavit giving reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. Rejoinder-affidavit to the said counter-affidavit has been filed today, which may be taken on record.

(3.) Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the academic career of the student should not be permitted to be jeopardized on a hyper-technical ground of non-impleadment of Central Board of Secondary Education as suggested by the counsel for the respondent specifically when the Board has already filed counter-affidavit and is representing through a counsel before this Court. It is just and proper that the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, may be impleaded as respondent No. 4. No notice is required to be issued to newly added respondent No. 4 as it is already represented by a counsel.