Honble VERMA, J. – Respondent No. 3 N.U. Khan, was proceeded against in the departmental enquiry. He was inflicted with the punishment of Censure. That order was appealed before the Higher Departmental Authority and the appeal failed Against the orders imposing punishment, he came to this Court in a writ petition and obtained interim order to the effect that order of punishment should not be used against him while considering him for the next promotion. (2). In the meanwhile the D.P.C. met and D.P.C. preferred Rafiuddin Sidhqui who was the person just next to him in the seniority but he could not get promotion in view of the said interim order passed by this Court. Thereafter he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for being impleaded as a respondent to the writ petition to oppose the stay and the writ. A learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that he was neither necessary nor proper party, and dismissed the application. This is special appeal by him. (3). Learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, as it is only an `interlocutory order and the rights of the parties have not been finally decided. He relied upon the D.B. decision of this Court reported in 1980 ILR (Raj.) p. 514 (1) in support of the preliminary objection. There a learned Single Judge had granted ex parte interim stay and then after hearing both sides vacated that stay order. Special appeal against that order was filed and it was held that rights of the parties had not been finally determined. There the matter was still pending before the learned Single Judge where the rights of the parties were to be determined but in this case nothing is pending before the learned Single Judge so far as the appeallant and the writ petitioner are concerned. Accordingly that case is distinguishable. (4). For the reasons recorded, we over rule the preliminary objection. (5). So far as the application is concerned we are of the view that the matter is covered in favour of the appellant by decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1655 (2) and A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1786 (3). Accordingly that case is distinguishable. (4). For the reasons recorded, we over rule the preliminary objection. (5). So far as the application is concerned we are of the view that the matter is covered in favour of the appellant by decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1655 (2) and A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1786 (3). Therein representation of a police officer against adverse A.C.R. was accepted and against that order the officer next below in seniority filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition saying that he had no locus standi but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that whether representation should be allowed or not, in that matter he was having interest because that would be affecting his future chances of promotion. (6). The aforesaid reasoning would be applicable to this case with great force. Here the appellant who wants to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition has been selected by D.P.C. but is not being promoted by virtue of stay order obtained by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The appellants chances of promotion are directly affected in this case as he has been sele- cted by D.P.C. but his promotion is not given because of the stay order in the writ petition. Accordingly, the application and appeal are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be impleaded as a respondent to the writ petition. He will file reply to the writ petition within two weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. The appellant will have the liberty to file an application before the learned Single Judge since he has been impleaded as a party to the writ petition today, for modification reversal of the interim order passed in absence of the appellant.