JUDGMENT K. M. Dayal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by some of the Munsifs, who have been appointed on the basis of the competitive examination of 1970 held by the U.P. Public Service Commission. There are two classes in the service aforesaid and the petitioners belong to Class II. 2. State of U.P. is respondent 1 and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is the respondent 2. Public Service Commission has been ordered to be impleaded as respondent 78. The other respondents are the Munsifs who appeared at the competitive examination of 1970 held by the U.P. Public Service Commission along with the petitioners in the year 1971 and those who appeared in subsequent years at the competitive examinations and have been appointed in the aforesaid service but have been made senior to the petitioners. 3. Eighty five posts of Munsifs were advertised through newspapers on 3-9-1970. It was further mentioned that the number of posts could be increased. It was named as the examination of 1970. It was to be conducted in two parts: Written test carrying 850 marks and viva voce carrying 150 marks. The written tests were held on 24-2-1971 and thereafter, viva voce tests were held up to 31-8-1971. The petitioners and the respondents second set i.e. 3 to 71 appeared at that examination. Initially only 46 persons were declared successful and were recommended by the Public Service Commission for appointment. Out of the 46 candidates mentioned above six persons had obtained higher marks in the competition. They had been rightly placed above the petitioners and their position has not been challenged. They have not been impleaded in the petition. The position of all the candidates has been given in the order of merit in Annexure `I' to the writ petition. That annexure contains the total marks obtained by the candidates and their respective dates of appointment in the service. 4. At this stage it will be relevant to make a reference to the rule known as the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951. These rules were framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution and published by Notification No. O-2270/II-B-283-44 dated 29th Sept. 1951. These rules were in force up to 31st Jan. 1972 when the Governor amended the aforesaid rules. They were renamed as U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951. 5. These rules were framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution and published by Notification No. O-2270/II-B-283-44 dated 29th Sept. 1951. These rules were in force up to 31st Jan. 1972 when the Governor amended the aforesaid rules. They were renamed as U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951. 5. The names of 46 persons, initially recommended, were published by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 9-10-1971. That list did not include the names of the petitioners and the respondents third set, i.e. respondents 73 to 81. The petitioners came to know that the State Government had asked the Public Service Commission to recommend more names of the successful candidates of the competition of 1970, and that the Public Service Commission had recommended 34 more persons as successful candidates for appointment in Jan. 1972. Before the appointment of any of the candidates declared successful by the two lists of the Public Service Commission, the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 were amended with effect from 31st Jan. 1972 and were converted into Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951. 6. In Feb. 1972 after the amendment of the rules the petitioners and the respondents third set wrote to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and other authorities mentioned in para 8 of the petition regarding the omission of their names from the list of successful candidates of the 1970 examination. They requested that they be treated as successful candidates in the examination under the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali for recruitment to the service. Seventynine persons whose names had been recommended by the Public Service Commission by the two lists were appointed to the service by five notifications of different dates which are mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition. The petitioners claimed that they were superior in merit to the candidates who had been appointed and were entitled to be appointed to the service. Petitioner 3, Vinod Kumar Vishnoi and respondent 73, Vinod Kumar filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6453 of 1972 in this Court challenging the appointment of the aforesaid 79 candidates and in the alternative seeking a direction that they be appointed as members of service and be given seniority on the basis of their merit in the competitive examination of 1970. 7. In the meantime another competitive examination was announced by the Public Service Commission as the competitive Examination of 1972. 7. In the meantime another competitive examination was announced by the Public Service Commission as the competitive Examination of 1972. A written test for that examination was held in 1973 and the viva voce tests were held in 1974. The State of U.P. did not file any counter affidavit in that writ petition. Adjournments were sought by the State Government from time to time on the ground that the case of the petitioners in that petition was being considered by it. In the meantime and before the petition could be heard, a seniority list was published by the State Government. It contained the names of the candidates who had already been appointed on the basis of the competition of 1970. 8. The result of the successful candidates of the 1972 Competition was also published by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The successful candidates of the competitive examination of 1972 were appointed by various notifications detailed in para 16(i) of the writ petition. Ultimately the State Government ordered appointment of the petitioners and the respondents third set, as members of the service on the basis of the competitive examination of 1970 by notification 5691/Two-5-32(3)/&C dated 19th Aug. 1975. That Notification had been filed with this writ petition as Annexure 'III'. 9. More candidates of 1972 competition were appointed by the State Government by three notifications mentioned in para 16(ii). Subsequently the State Government published the seniority list for the candidates of the 1972 Examination on 15-3-1977. Petitioner 2 made a representation to the State Government through the High Court for fixation of his seniority. 10. By a notification dated 3-9-1977 the High Court confirmed the persons who had been appointed earlier than the petitioners on the basis of the competitive examination of 1970. These names were mentioned in the seniority list (Annexure `II' to the writ petition). The petitioners and the respondents third set were excluded from the list in spite of the fact that their probationary period of two years had expired and they were entitled to be confirmed. It has also been asserted in para 18 of the writ petition that the probationary period of the petitioners and the respondents third set was never extended. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 18-12-1978 as per information received by the petitioner from the Registrar of the High Court on 7th Jan. 1979. It has also been asserted in para 18 of the writ petition that the probationary period of the petitioners and the respondents third set was never extended. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 18-12-1978 as per information received by the petitioner from the Registrar of the High Court on 7th Jan. 1979. The petitioners demanded a copy of the order but the same was not supplied to them. 11. Under these circumstances the petitioners claimed that they were entitled to be placed in the seniority list in accordance with the marks obtained by them in the competition of 1970 along with the other candidates of the year 1970. They were entitled to be placed in the seniority list above the appointees of the 1972 examination. Counter-affidavits have been filed by some of the-respondents and the State and the High Court. A counter affidavit was called for from the Public Service Commission which has also been filed. 12. It has been pleaded by the High Court as well as the State Government and some of the respondents who have put in contest, that though the petitioners were examinees of 1970 Examination, they were not declared successful. Due to certain exigencies it was decided to appoint the petitioners in the year 1974. They were appointed as "unplaced" candidates and were not shown in the seniority list as they formed a different class altogether. They could not be treated as successful candidates of the year 1970 nor could they claim seniority on the basis of that competition. They were really unsuccessful in that examination and they were appointed later on as the Public Service Commission relaxed the qualification for their appointment. The respondents claimed that the petitioners were not entitled to seniority over the candidates who had been appointed on the basis of the competitive examinations of the years 1970-72. It was claimed that the petitioners were not included in the lists that were issued by the Public Service Commission under R. 19 of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. It was further pleaded that all the candidates of the 1972 competition were not impleaded. As the petitioners claimed seniority over those candidates as well, the petition was liable to be dismissed. 13. The respondents claimed that the rules that were applicable to the petitioners for the purpose of their appointment were the original rules of the year 1951. It was further pleaded that all the candidates of the 1972 competition were not impleaded. As the petitioners claimed seniority over those candidates as well, the petition was liable to be dismissed. 13. The respondents claimed that the rules that were applicable to the petitioners for the purpose of their appointment were the original rules of the year 1951. They were not entitled to any benefit by virtue of the amendment of the rules which came into force on 31st Jan. 1972 as U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali. It was further claimed by the respondents that the petitioners having been placed in an altogether different class i.e. `unplaced', they were not entitled to be equated with the respondents for fixation of seniority. The petitioners were appointed in the year 1975 whereas the respondents were appointed prior to them. The petitioners having failed in 1970 Examination, they could not be appointed except under the powers conferred by the Governor under Art. 320 of the Constitution. 14. The following main questions are involved in the present petition : - (i) Whether the petitioners were appointed as candidates of the 1970 examination conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission? (ii) Whether the appointment of petitioners mentioning them as `unplaced Munsifs' created a new class and whether due to their being placed in a separate class, they were not entitled to be treated at par with the Munsifs appointed by the same examination? (iii) What will be the effect of the earlier writ petition having been dismissed or withdrawn? (iv) What will be the effect of the non-impleadment of some of the subsequent appointees on the maintainability of the writ petition? POINTS NOS. 1 and 2 15. The petitioners' contention is that in the original rules, they were entitled to be placed in the merit list in the order of the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. They relied upon Rule 19 which reads as under : - "List of candidates approved by the Commission - The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates who have taken the examination for recruitment to the service in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. They relied upon Rule 19 which reads as under : - "List of candidates approved by the Commission - The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates who have taken the examination for recruitment to the service in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the commission shall arrange them in order of merits on the basis of their general suitability for the service : Provided that in making their recommendations the Commission shall satisfy themselves that the candidate - (i) has obtained such an aggregate of marks in the written test that he is qualified by his ability for appointment to the service; (ii) has obtained in the viva voce test such sufficiently high marks that he is suitable for the service." They further relied upon Rule 22 of the said rules. That rule provides that the seniority was to be determined according to the year of appointment and in accordance with the position in the merit list prepared under R. 19. Rule 22 is reproduced below : "Seniority - Subject to the provisions of rule 21 the seniority of candidates already in service at the time when these rules come into force would be determined according to the rules in force previously and for those appointed subsequently the seniority shall be determined by the year of competitive examination on the results of which a candidate is recruited and the position in the list prepared under rule 19. Note - A candidate may lose his seniority if without any reasonable cause he does not join his service when a vacancy is offered to him." (emphasis added) 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the aggregate marks referred to in R. 19 would be the total of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written and the viva voce tests. The complaint of the petitioners is that many persons who obtained much less marks in the aggregate have been made senior to them. 17. The defence of the respondents is that the Public Service Commission was entitled to fix the minimum marks that had to be obtained by the candidates in viva voce test for being appointed to the post. The complaint of the petitioners is that many persons who obtained much less marks in the aggregate have been made senior to them. 17. The defence of the respondents is that the Public Service Commission was entitled to fix the minimum marks that had to be obtained by the candidates in viva voce test for being appointed to the post. They relied upon the second proviso of R. 19 and contended that the petitioners obtained less marks in viva voce, though they had obtained much higher marks in the written test. Consequently, they were excluded from the first two lists prepared by the Public Service Commission. According to them the Public Service Commission had fixed 40% in the viva voce as minimum marks for qualifying in the examination. Subsequently the Government recommended to the Public Service Commission for fixing 35% marks as qualifying marks. From the relevant notification it is not clear whether 35% marks were to be obtained in the aggregate or in viva voce alone. It appears that the Government intended that the candidates who obtained 35% marks in the aggregate should be recommended for appointment. But the Public Service Commission took that recommendation as 40% in the viva voce examination alone and not in the aggregate. 18. "Under the rules the seniority had to [be decided subject to the provisions of R. 31 in accordance with the position of the candidate in the list prepared under R. 19. The list under R. 19 is to be prepared showing the proficiency of the persons by the "aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate." 19. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not at all placed in the list under R. 19, cannot be accepted for the reason that the only manner of approval of a candidate by the Public Service Commission is by placing him in the list prepared under R. 19. Once a person is placed in that list, the position is to be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks as quoted above. There is a further requirement that the Public Service Commission has to prepare a list of the candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment. Therefore, the Public Service Commission had no authority to delete any name from the list. There is a further requirement that the Public Service Commission has to prepare a list of the candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment. Therefore, the Public Service Commission had no authority to delete any name from the list. It is a different thing that the lists were prepared in two or more instalments and sent as and when demanded by the appointing authority. The Public Service Commission could not place only a small number of candidates in the list and omit the rest. 19-A. The argument of the respondent was that as the minimum of 40% in the viva voce was prescribed by the Public Service Commission under proviso to R. 19, the Public Service Commission was not obliged to include the names of persons who had not obtained the minimum marks in viva voce. The advertisement for the examination is on record. It discloses that no such minimum was prescribed before holding of the examination. It also did not refer to any such rule which could have indicated that a minimum of 40% marks was required to be obtained by a candidate in vova voce. It is true that the rule authorised the Public Service Commission to lay down such minimum but that it was so laid down prior to the holding of the examination of the year 1970 does not appear from the record. If any minimum marks were prescribed the candidates should have had notice of the same and only then they could decide to appear or not to appear at the examination. The Public Service Commission cannot at its whim at any point of time, without notice to the candidates fix minimum marks. 20. There is yet another aspect of the case. Before any appointment could be made the rules were amended and the proviso (2) to R. 19, which authorised the Public Service Commission to fix minimum marks for viva voce test, was deleted. The Public Service Commission had recommended only 45 candidates for appointment per its letter dated 25th Oct. 1971, Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 24-9-1980 (in reply to the counter affidavit of Harish Chandra Srivastava on behalf of respondent 2). It did not disclose the percentage of marks obtained by the persons recommended. The State Government which was also the appointing authority did not appear to be satisfied with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. 1971, Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 24-9-1980 (in reply to the counter affidavit of Harish Chandra Srivastava on behalf of respondent 2). It did not disclose the percentage of marks obtained by the persons recommended. The State Government which was also the appointing authority did not appear to be satisfied with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. A letter was written by the State Government to the Public Service Commission asking for its views in the matter of appointing persons who had obtained up to 35% marks. It is letter dated 27-11-1971 (Annexure `2' to the rejoinder affidavit mentioned above). The State Government wrote that 85 posts were advertised whereas only 45 candidates were recommended for appointment. That was wholly inadequate. There were a large number of vacancies. The Public Service Commission was asked to give its opinion about the appointment of those candidates who had obtained up to 35% marks. 21. The other list that was forwarded by the Public Service Commission contained the names of those candidates who had obtained above 35 per cent marks in the written examination but it did not reduce the marks to the same percentage for viva voce. Really speaking the State Government had obtained the opinion of the Public Service Commission for appointment of persons having above 35% marks. It is not understood why the Public Service Commission instead of replying the query and expressing its views merely submitted a second list of candidates for appointment. It is also not understood why, if the minimum marks in the written examination were reduced to 35 per cent, the marks obtained in viva voce were not similarly reduced. The Public Service Commission acted illegally in preparing the list and recommending the candidates for appointment. The petitioners were ultimately recommended for appointment after State Government asked the Public Service Commission to recommend all those persons who had qualified in the competitions of 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 examinations. In its reply the Public Service Commission disclosed that the earlier lists were not available and out of the 1970 examination the petitioners and respondents third set were recommended. The argument of the Petitioner's counsel is that these appointments were made in view of the statement made in the earlier petition and after considering the impropriety of the earlier recommendations. 22. The argument of the Petitioner's counsel is that these appointments were made in view of the statement made in the earlier petition and after considering the impropriety of the earlier recommendations. 22. The question which now remains to be seen is whether the petitioners and respondents IIIrd set were appointed on the basis of the 1970 examination or otherwise. The respondents contended that they were not appointed on the basis of the 1970 Examination. They were appointed after relaxation under R. 32. We have examined R. 32. It does not apply in the instant case. No relaxation was granted. No order has been placed before us from which it could be inferred that any relaxation was granted in respect of the petitioners or respondents third set. The fact cannot be pleaded by merely filing a counter affidavit. In absence of any order relaxing the qualification in respect of the petitioners it is not possible to hold that there was any relaxation. 23. In AIR 1978 SC 851 , Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., New Delhi it was held by the Supreme Court as under (at p. 858) : "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gobardhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at p. 18) . Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 24. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 24. There is another aspect of the case that even if relaxation is assumed, that would not affect the position of the petitioners and respondents third set in the lists prepared under Rr. 19 and 22. Rule 31 does not apply to the instant case and, therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners were appointed on account of any other consideration except the competition of 1970. 25. It has been vehemently argued by the respondents and also pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the High Court that the petitioners form an altogether separate class and that is why in their appointment letters it was mentioned that they were `Unplaced' Munsifs. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioners form an altogether separate class of special recruits and were not recruited as Munsifs like other respondents recruited on the basis of the 1970 examination. A close examination of the notification of appointment of the petitioners leads to a different conclusion. Annexure `3' to the writ petition is the letter of appointment of the petitioners and respondents third set. Annexure `3' reads as under: " yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr mRrj izns'k U;k; U;kf;d lsok esa HkrhZ gsrq izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk 1970 ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr vuV~sUV vH;kfl;ksa dks bl izfrca/k ds lkFk vLFkk;h eqfUlQ fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS] fd muds ikjLifjd Js"Brk rFkk igys fu;qDr fd;s x;s vH;kfl;ksa ds lkFk mudh Js"Brk ckn esa fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh rFkk mUgsa muds lkeus vafdr ftys esa rSukr fd;k tkrk gSA " 26. From this notification it is clear that they were termed as `unplaced' with the reservation that their inter se seniority was to be determined later with the earlier appointees. The other appointment letters are also relevant. U.P. Gazette Notification dated 23rd June 1972 Part I dated 15th July 1972 page 4014 has been produced before us. By that notification other candidates of the 1970 examination were appointed. That notification mentioned that their inter se seniority with the seniority of the persons who would be appointed later would be determined subsequently. U.P. Gazette Notification dated 23rd June 1972 Part I dated 15th July 1972 page 4014 has been produced before us. By that notification other candidates of the 1970 examination were appointed. That notification mentioned that their inter se seniority with the seniority of the persons who would be appointed later would be determined subsequently. It reads as under: " yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr mRrj izns'k flfoy lfoZl ( T;wfMf'k;y czkUp ) esa HkrhZ gsrq izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk 1970 ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr vH;kfl;ksa dks bl izfrca/k ds lkFk vLFkk;h eqfUlQ fuq;Dr fd;k tkrk gS] fd muds ikjLifjd Js"Brk rFkk ckn esa fu;qDr fd;s tkus okys vH;kfl;ksa ds lkFk mudh Js"Brk ckn esa fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh rFkk mUgsa muds lkeus fy[ks ftys esa rSukr fd;k tkrk gSA " 27. There is another appoint merit letter of Rajendra Prasad Shukla, one of the respondents in the third set which has been filed as Annexure `4' to the supplementary affidavit dated 24-2-1981 of Sidhnath Pandey. That reads as under : " yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr mRrj izns'k U;kf;d lsok esa HkrhZ gsrq izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk 1970 ds vk/kkj ij Fkh jfoUnz izlkn 'kqDy dks bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk vLFkk;h eqfUlQ fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS fd mudh Js"Brk igys fu;qDr fd;s x;s vH;kfl;ksa ds lkFk ckn esa fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh rFkk mudh ,d fjDr U;k;ky; esa f}rh; vfrfjDr eqfUlQ] ckank ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA " 28. This does not mention the word `unplaced'. The earlier notification dated 23rd June 1972 also does not mention the word `unplaced'. However, the notification of 1972 mentions that the seniority of the appointees by that notification was to be determined with the 'subsequent appointees; and the subsequent notifications mentioned that the seniority of the appointees of those notifications was to be determined along with those who had been appointed earlier. The word `unplaced' appears to have been used merely to show that earlier seniority list of candidates of 1970 Examination had been published on 19th Aug. 1975 vide Annexure `2' to the writ petition. The persons who were appointed subsequently could not have been placed in that list and consequently they were given the adjective `unplaced' which could merely mean that they had to be placed in the seniority list, subsequently. We are unable to hold that unplaced meant a person who was not to be given any place in the seniority list. The persons who were appointed subsequently could not have been placed in that list and consequently they were given the adjective `unplaced' which could merely mean that they had to be placed in the seniority list, subsequently. We are unable to hold that unplaced meant a person who was not to be given any place in the seniority list. There is no such provision either in the rules or elsewhere. As we have held above, the petitioners were appointees of the 1970 examination and except the result of that examination there could be no other basis of their appointment. They were entitled to be placed in the seniority list in accordance with R. 22 of the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Adhiniyam. POINT NO. 3: 29. Admittedly the earlier writ petition was filed only by two persons and not all the present petitioners. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the assurance of the State Government that the matter of `petitioners' appointment was under consideration. Their representation had not been rejected till that time. The State Government had also moved an application (Annexure 4 to the rejoinder affidavit) for adjournment through the Chief Standing Counsel on the ground that the matter was under consideration. From the order passed in that writ petition it appears that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. It reads as under : "Sri S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the present petition has already been granted by the State Government. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- K. N. S. 30-3-75 30. As the petitioners were appointed, that petition had become infructuous. In the appointment letter of the petitioners it was mentioned that the seniority was to be determined later. Consequently, the petition had become infructuous. It was only after the seniority of the petitioner was refused to be determined along with the other appointees of their batch that the cause of action for the present petition arose. Under the circumstances the present petition cannot be said to be barred by the dismissal of the previous writ petition. POINT NO. 4: 31. The last question that requires consideration is the effect of non-impleadment of the persons who have been appointed subsequently and whether their non-impleadment bars the present petition. 32. Under the circumstances the present petition cannot be said to be barred by the dismissal of the previous writ petition. POINT NO. 4: 31. The last question that requires consideration is the effect of non-impleadment of the persons who have been appointed subsequently and whether their non-impleadment bars the present petition. 32. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as the seniority of the persons who had been appointed subsequently was to be effected by the result of the present petition, it was necessary that they should have been impleaded and in their absence the present petition cannot succeed. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointees of 1972 and subsequent examinations were not necessary parties to the present petition. The petitioners were claiming their position vis-a-vis the appointees of the 1970 examination. The appointees of 1972 who had been appointed prior to the petitioners have also been impleaded. Under the circumstances all the persons who were to be affected are parties. The persons who had been appointed by the examinations after 1972 could not have any grievance as they could not claim any position in the seniority list above the appointees of 1971 or 1972. Further, their being placed in the merit list does not confer any right on the persons in the list. They have only a right to be considered for confirmation or future promotion. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Annexure `4' to the writ petition under which the `inter se' seniority of the candidates of the 1972 competition was fixed. Annexure `4' mentioned that the seniority was being fixed in respect of Temporary Munsifs appointed through 1972 examination. This document is dated 15-3-1977. According to the respondents as inter se seniority of the 1972 candidates was being fixed, it was necessary to implead them all. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seniority of these persons has not been fixed as yet in relation to candidates of 1970 competition including the petitioners. These persons will be below the 1970 examinees. He, however, contended that in a case like the present one, it was neither possible nor necessary to implead all the subsequent appointees. He relied upon the cases of B. Gopalaiah v. Govt, of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 204) and General Manager, South Central Rly. These persons will be below the 1970 examinees. He, however, contended that in a case like the present one, it was neither possible nor necessary to implead all the subsequent appointees. He relied upon the cases of B. Gopalaiah v. Govt, of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 204) and General Manager, South Central Rly. v. A. R. Sidhauli ( AIR 1974 SC 1755 ) ; (1974 Lab I C 587). 33. In the case of General Manager, South Central Railways, the Railway Board issued a clarification modifying its earlier communication dated 22-11-1957. By this clarification, the respondents were aggrieved. Their seniority was to be effected. They filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the General Manager, Railways to fix their `inter se' seniority. An objection was taken that all the persons who were to be benefited by the clarification had not been impleaded in the writ petition and consequently the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court held as under (at p. 1759) : - "The Respondents-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of Government servant is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals, pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the readjustment of the Petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Boards decision of Oct. 16, 1952, were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition." In the case of B. Gopalaiah v. Govt, of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 204) (supra), it was observed (at p. 205) : - "3. 16, 1952, were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition." In the case of B. Gopalaiah v. Govt, of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 204) (supra), it was observed (at p. 205) : - "3. The learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the persons who are likely to be affected if the Memorandum is struck down, namely, the teachers in the other Municipal schools are not before the court and therefore this court should not interfere. I cannot agree. This is not the case of discrimination of individual against individual. This is a case where a whole class of citizens has been discriminated against and the court cannot refuse to give relief to them on the ground that the class of persons who will be benefited as a result of the discrimination is not before the Court. The persons who complain of discrimination cannot be expected to search the country for all persons who are likely to be benefited by its discriminatory policy. Of course, if the discrimination is in favour of an individual against an individual different considerations might arise. But this is not such a case. In my opinion, where a scheme formulated by the Government is attacked on the ground of its being discriminatory the position is precisely the same as if a statute is attacked as being discriminatory and it can never be an answer to such an attack that persons likely to be benefited by a discriminatory statute should be brought before the Court before the statute is struck down. I, therefore, see no force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader". Under the circumstances, the petition cannot fail merely for non-impleadment of the appointees of 1972 and subsequent competitions. 34. Under the circumstances the present petition deserves to be allowed. The communication dated 6-1-1979 Annexure `6' to the writ petition rejecting the representation of the petitioners by the High Court is quashed. Consequently, the fixation of `inter se' seniority of the Munsifs appointed on the basis of the competitive examination held by the U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1970 Annexure `2' to the writ petition dated 19-8-1975 has also to be quashed. Consequently, the fixation of `inter se' seniority of the Munsifs appointed on the basis of the competitive examination held by the U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1970 Annexure `2' to the writ petition dated 19-8-1975 has also to be quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to prepare the seniority of the examinees of 1970 petition afresh in accordance with R. 22 read with R. 19, U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951, and give the petitioners and respondents their due position in the seniority list accordingly. The new seniority list will govern the confirmation and promotion of the candidates of the 1970 examination. There will be no cder as to costs.