JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
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 Suffice it to say that this Court vide order dated 20.7.2001, rejected the second application for impleadment as withdrawn on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he may be permitted to file a fresh application.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 :
"Sri Anil Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners, prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the second impleadment application and the amendment application dated 18th July, 2001.
The prayer is allowed. It is open to the petitioners to file a fresh application within a week.
List in the next cause list showing the name of Sri Anil Tiwari as counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. R. Sirohi as counsel for the respondents."
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.
4. In this view of the matter, the prayer for further time by the learned counsel for the petitioner to file impleadment application, is rejected.
5. In the absence of the necessary party who might be affected by any Judgment or order that might be delivered. In favour of the petitioners, this petition is liable to be dismissed as necessary parties were not impleaded.
6. The writ petition is dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that this writ petition may be treated to be a writ petition for the present persons impleaded as respondent. So far as service jurisprudence is concerned each and every person who is impleaded as respondent or likely to be impleaded, has separate right. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be treated to be a writ petition against the persons who are impleaded unless all the persons are not impleaded as respondents who are affected as necessary party.
8. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.