Judgment M. P. Verma, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure 5 and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix up the senoirity of this petitioner on the basis of the principle adopted by the state Government (vide Annexures 3 and 3/1) and to grant him the benefit of the military service, which he claims to have rendered in the emergency created when our country was at war during the Chinese aggression and when there was a conflict with Pakistan. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the military service in regular army as a technical trainee in the Engineering section of the Armed Force on 22nd October 1953. He was released from service on 26th January 1969. Some time after, on the basis of an advertisement, issued on 22nd of March, 1970 by Public Service Commission, this petitioner applied for getting an appointment as the Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical) under Public Health and eagineering Department. A copy of the advertisement in Annexure 1 and forms part of this petition. This petitioner was selected and was appointed to the post and joined the same on 6th July, 1972 (vide Annexure2) It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the services of this petitioner in the army would have terminated on 22nd of December 1962 after serving for a period of nine years. The case of the petitioner is that since emergency was promulgated on 26th October, 1962, he was forced to continue in service during emergency and his servcies, have been terminated on 22nd December 1968. It is further stated on his behalf that the Government of Bihar issued circular dated 12th July, 1967 and again on 29th September, 1967 (vide Annexure 3 and 3/1 respectively)to provide suitable employment to those, who would be released on completion of their short service commission created during the emergency and also for fixation of their pay and seniority. It has further been submitted that all such displaced military personnel, who got re employment in the civii post, the Government granted concession that for the purpose of seniority such candidate shall be deemed to have been appointed to the civil post on the date, on which the candidate joined military service. It has further been submitted that all such displaced military personnel, who got re employment in the civii post, the Government granted concession that for the purpose of seniority such candidate shall be deemed to have been appointed to the civil post on the date, on which the candidate joined military service. It is on the basis of this circular, as contained in Annexure 3 that the writ petitioner claims that he is entitled to get his seniority at least from the year when he served in the military during the emergency. He filed a representation to the State Government for fixation of his seniority accordingly, but his representation was finally turned down on 7th November, 1977 (vide Annexure 5 of this writ petition ). 3. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing of this Annexure 5 and also to fix up his seniority in the present service accordingly taking into consideration the period of his rendering service during the emergency. It has further been stated that his position has been shown very much junior in rank along with new entrants of the year 1972. 4. Before I proceed to dispose of this application on among other grounds, I like to say that I have my doubts regarding maintainability of this application. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been put much junior in rank to other appointees or promotees in service. None of them has been made party to this application. In my opinion, no writ of certiorari can be issued detrimental to the interest of those, who are necessary parties and whose interest might be adversely affected, unless they are made parties to the proceeding Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner at no stage has challenged any bodys appointment or seniority of other appointees. In my opinion, no writ of certiorari can be issued detrimental to the interest of those, who are necessary parties and whose interest might be adversely affected, unless they are made parties to the proceeding Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner at no stage has challenged any bodys appointment or seniority of other appointees. It has been further urged that in this writ application the petitioner has challenged the policy decision of the state Government with regard to the denial of the benefit of the seniority, which has accrued to him under the circular issued by the State Government (vide Annexure 3 and 3/1), In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of G. M. S. C. Rly, V/s. A. V. R. Sidhanti, ( AIR 1974 SC 1755 ) where it has been held that non-joinder of those, who at best may appear to be a proper party will not be fatal for the maintainability of this application, so far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner has averred in paragraph 14 of the writ application as follows : "that as a result of the case, the peittioners position is being shown very much junior in rank along with the new entrants of 1972". This makes the position amply clear that in case if the writ application succeeds the order would certainly affect all those, who have been appointed in the year 1972 and it has been stated that the petitioner has been shown junior to them. The petitioner has not given the list of all such persons, who ranked senior to him and those position would be affected by this writ application. In spite of such averment in the petition those seniority would be certainly affected has not been added as parties any in such a situation, as slated above, in my opinion the application is not maintainable. However, I like to give my finding on the merit of the case as well, as has been submitted at the bar. I feel that interpretation of the two circulars as contained in Annexure3and 3/1 clinches the whole issue. There is no dispute that this petitioner joined the regular army of the military service long before the Chinese aggression or before Pakistani attack on our country. I feel that interpretation of the two circulars as contained in Annexure3and 3/1 clinches the whole issue. There is no dispute that this petitioner joined the regular army of the military service long before the Chinese aggression or before Pakistani attack on our country. It is not his case that he joined at Army Short Service Commission or Short emergency Service Commission during the emergency period Under annexure 3/1 the Government decided to provide employment and to rehabilitate those Emergency Commissioned officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers who reverted from militars service after completion of their short-term service commission, the favour was shown to all such young man, who opted for such short service commission during the emergency and fought for the motherland. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he opted for regular course and under the service condition he was bound to serve during the emergency as well and in fact, he continued to work as such when the emergency was declared Annexure B/2 filed by the respondents, which is a certificate of discharge of this petitioner from service shows that his term of appointment in the military was for fifteen years regular course and as such, his services terminated on 22nd December, 1967. But as contended, by the petitioners learned counsel, this petitioner was released from service on 26th January, 1969 when the emergency was over. Rendering services for the motherland by this petitioner can very well be appreciated, but I am in doubt if he can reap any advantage of the circular contained in annexure 3, It would be relevant to extract some portions of the circular as contained in Annexure3. It is a letter addressed to the secretaries of the different departments of the State Government written by the secretary of the Appointment Department on the subject of grant of concession to engineers and doctors who rendered Military service during the Emergency created by the Chinese and Pakistani conflicts. It is a letter addressed to the secretaries of the different departments of the State Government written by the secretary of the Appointment Department on the subject of grant of concession to engineers and doctors who rendered Military service during the Emergency created by the Chinese and Pakistani conflicts. " (1) The State Government have been considering to grant concession in the matter of Civil Employment to doctors and engineers who opted for or joined emergency or short service commission before the introduction of the compulsory liability schemes in January, 1965, according to which engineers and doctors serving under the State Government are liable for deputation to military service for four years before they reached the age of 40 years and 45 years respectively or before completion of 10 years of service. Such persons can be divided into two categories ; (i) persons who are already in the State service and have joined the military on deputation and would come back after release from Army ; and (ii) persons who have joined the Military service from the open market and are being released from military service after completing short commission. (2) The term military service, has been used to mean enrolled or commissioned service in of the three Wings of the Indian armed Force including service as a warrant officer rendered by any person during the present emergency created by the chinese aggression and Pakistani conflict. " (3) For the persons of the first category, the Government have decided to grant the following concessions : - (a) permanent Government servants for opting military service shall hold a lien on their civil posts; (b) Temporary Government servants can not have lien but depending upon the existence of the post at the time of their demobilisation, they, would be allowed to return back to their civil posts. In respect of persons of the second category namely the Engineers and doctors, who joined Emergency Commission and Short Service Commission directly and are thereafter released from Military Service the State Government have been pleased to grant the following concession : - (i) 50% of the permanent, vacancies which occur as a result of retiring and other casualties from (he permanent cadre of class i and class II State Engineering and Medical services, should be reserved for the Ex-Army personnel having to their credit satisfactory military service and who are found physically fit at the time of consideration against reserved vacancies according to the rules applicable to the particular servcie. Untill further order, reserved vacancies if remaining unfilled would be filled by others (o. her than ex-military service personnel) only on a temporary basis. (ii) For the purpose of pay and seniority, such a candidate shall be deemed to have been appointed to the civil post on the date on which he joined military service provided that no officer will get advantage in matter of seniority and pay fixation for the period of military service rendered by him before 1st November, 1962 of course, the service rendered after 1st November, 1962 will count in the manner indicated above. " 5. It is quite implicit that the case of this petitioner does not come under either of the two categories as shown above. Earlier to his joining in the military service he was not under the state service commissioned officer during the emergency. The representation of this petitioner was referred to the Appointment Department and as per circular, as contained in Annexure a filed by the respondents it was found that the benefit could be availed only by those, who were commissioned in the army force on or before 1st of November, 1962. In other words,it applied to those, who entered the armed force service during the emergency. The benefit of circular therefore, cannot be bestowed on the petitioner. The petitioner, no doubt, rendered services during the emergency, but rendering services does not mean that he was recruited during the emergency or for emergency work. So, his claim for position of seniority during the year 1962 on the basis of service appears to be misconceived. The benefit of circular therefore, cannot be bestowed on the petitioner. The petitioner, no doubt, rendered services during the emergency, but rendering services does not mean that he was recruited during the emergency or for emergency work. So, his claim for position of seniority during the year 1962 on the basis of service appears to be misconceived. It will be important to mention here that concession was already granted to the petitioner by giving as employment in the civil post in the reserve quota as per advertisement, vide Annexure 1. Three such posts were reserved for those, who were released from the military service and this petitioner further got concession from the Government that though he was over age at the time of appointment he got the concession. But in my opinion, in any view of the matter he cannot get the benefit of the concession under circulars contained in Annexure 3 and 3/1, which have been given by the State Government only to such commissioned officers, who joined the service during the emergency. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that a discremination has been made by the State Government in the case of this petitioner. It has been urged that such a benefit has been granted to the doctors, who were appointed in the civil post after being released from the military service. The case of the doctors cannot be equated with that of engineers. However, it has not been shown whether any of such doctors, who has joined in the military service in the regular course could get the benefit as contained in Annexure3 and 3/1. It has already been made clear that such officers, who joined emergency service commission could avail of the benefits granted under the circulars (Annexure 3 and 3/1) and I do not find that there has been any discremination made to the petitioner. The contention is, therefore, ruled out. 7. In the circumstances referred to above, there appears to be no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.