##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8165/2026 CNR: RJHC020384102026 | URN: CW / 17922U / 2026 Union Of India & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Shivnandan Prasad ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8967/2025 CNR: RJHC020483092025 | URN: CW / 20481U / 2025 Union Of India & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Shivnandan Prasad & Anr.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19539/2025 CNR: RJHC021088942025 | URN: CW / 43683U / 2025 Mukesh Gehlot S/o. Shri Ganpat Singh Gehlot ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India & Ors.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8328/2026 CNR: RJHC020384012026 | URN: CW / 18412U / 2026 Union Of India & Anr.

----Petitioners Versus Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Shivnandan Prasad ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Utkarsh Meena(in D.B. CWP Nos.

8165/2026, 8967/2025 & 8328/2026) Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari (in DB CWP No.

8967/2025)

Mr. Manan Sharma for Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma (in DB CWP No. 19539/2025)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anupam Agarwal, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Mr. Manan Sharma for Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma (in DB CWP No. 8967/2025)

Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari (in DB CWP No.

19539/2025)

Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Utkarsh Meena(in D.B. CWP No.

19539/2025)

Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

08/09/2026 In D.B. C.W.P. Nos. 8165/2026 & 8328/2026:-

1. The matter comes up on the applications (IA Nos.1/2026) filed on behalf of the Union of India under Order 1 Rule 10, in both the cases, for impleading one Mr. Hoshiar Singh who is presently working as Assistant Commercial Manager, Bikaner and Mr. Lal Chand Kumhar, who is also presently working as Assistant Commercial Manager, Bikaner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that upon finding the respondent ineligible, the process of selection of promotion was completed and Hoshiar Singh was selected and posted, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal has now passed an order in favour of the respondent treating him as eligible. If respondent’s case is to be considered, the concerned Hoshiar Singh would be affected. Therefore, in the interest of justice, he submits that Hoshiar Singh should also be heard before any decision is taken in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the concerned Hoshiar Singh had not been impleaded as the party before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that while promoting Hoshiar Singh, the Union of India had mentioned that his promotion is subject to the decision of the OA and therefore, there is no requirement to implead him now in the writ petition. If the respondent is promoted his reversal would be automated as there was only one post of Assistant Commercial Manager.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has also informed that in similar writ petition, application for impleadment of the concerned person who had been promoted subject to the decision of the OA has been allowed and similar view should be taken in the present writ petition also.

5. We have considered the submission.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 held as under:-

“9. The next question is whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi-judicial act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of certiorari the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without the successful party being be