SEEMA Vs. DR. BIMLA MALIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A perusal of the record would show that the Appellant filed complaint against writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 -Bimla Malik. It was at her instance that orders dated 2.4.2010 (P. 14), impugned in the writ petition filed by Dr. Bimla Malik have been passed by the Commissioner, Higher Education, Haryana. The aforesaid fact is revealed from the correspondence dated 28.10.2009 (P. 15) as is evident from the endorsement of that communication stating that the same has been forwarded to the Appellant. It has also not been disputed that writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 -Dr. Bimla Malik has been kept at serial No. 1 by the selection committee for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Hindi whereas the name of the Appellant figures at serial No. 2. It was represented before the learned Single Judge that the Appellant being the complainant and next in the waiting list would be proper and necessary party and, therefore, she should be permitted to join as a party -Respondent in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution initiated by the writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1.

(2.) MR . R.K. Malik, learned senior Counsel for writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 has opposed the submission made by the counsel for the Appellant by stating that at various forums the Appellant has failed and the certificate issued to writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 were found to be genuine. However, it remained undisputed that the Commissioner, Higher Education eventually found some substance in the allegations made by the Appellant, which has resulted in cancellation of her appointment. Mr. Malik, learned senior Counsel has also placed reliance on an order dated 23.11.2010 passed by this Court in C.M. No. 1662 of 2010 in C.W.P. No. 10027 of 2009, wherein reference of C.M. No. 11951 of 2010 in C.W.P. No. 6789 of 2010 has been made.

(3.) THE reliance of Mr. Malik, learned senior Counsel for the writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 on the order dated 23.11.2010 cannot be appreciated because the Division Bench has placed reliance on the order passed in Civil Misc. No. 11951 of 2010 in C.W.P. No. 6789 of 2010 for the purposes of the ratio of the judgment that if the controversy in a petition can be effectively decided in absence of the person who seeks to join as a party, then he would not be a necessary party. On a perusal of the detailed affidavit it has become clear that the Appellant has interest in the adjudication of the rights of writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 because it would vitally affect the rights of the Appellant as well. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention.