1. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.8.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.1641/2011.

2. M.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in regard to selection for the post of Professor in Sociology and for other posts. A corrigendum was also issued on 22.1.2009 by the PSC in regard to change in minimum qualification. Appellant applied for the post of Professor in Sociology. She also participated in the interview. When she was not selected, she filed a writ petition before the writ Court and questioned the criteria adopted by the selection committee in the interview. The appellant also challenged the subsequent corrigendum in regard to minimum qualification. The appellant was permitted to participate in the interview, hence, the aforesaid point raised by her in regard to eligibility criteria does not subsist.

3. The appellant challenged awarding of marks and the procedure adopted by the selection committee. She was placed at Sr.No.46 in the list because she received 35 marks. Photo copy of the select list and the record of the selection committee has been produced by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of MPPSC The last candidate who was appointed received 44 marks.

4. The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the selection committee did not award proper marks to the appellant and the selection procedure was contrary to the regulations framed by the University Grant Committed named “UGS Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010”. Learned senior advocate submits that Regulation 6.0.0 of the aforesaid Regulations prescribes selection procedure and it was obligatory on the part of selection committee to follow the aforesaid selection procedure.

5. We have perused the writ petition. From perusal of the writ petition, it is clear that the appellant did not join selected candidates as party in the writ petition; only State of Madhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission have been arrayed as respondents before the writ Court and this Court. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, near about 14 persons have been appointed to the post of Professor. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 PSC has submitted that the persons who were selected have also joined the services.

6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh [AIR 1998 SC 331], has held in regard to non-joinder of party in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, who would be vitally affected by the judgment of the Court, as under :

“12. All the original applicants before the Tribunal who have challenged these provisions for recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the Operation Black Board Scheme did not possess the requisite qualifications for being selected under the said scheme as Assistant Teachers. Their names do not figure among the lists forwarded by the concerned District Employment Exchanges. Surprisingly, the applications fileld by all these persons and/or groups before the Tribunal did not make the selected/appointed candidates who were directly affected by the outcome of their applications, as party respondents. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order without making them parties or issuing notice to any of them. The entire exercise is seriously distorted because of this omission. They have now filed the present appeals after they have been granted leave to file the appeals. In the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1984)4 SCC 251 at p.273=AIR 1985 SC 167 at p.180], this Court observed that in the case before them there was a serious defect on non-joinder of necessary parties and the only respondents of the Sangh’s petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. The emp