Judgment : D.K. Seth, J. 1. BY an order dated 26th March, 1987, the standing counsel was directed to file counter-affidavit within three weeks and the matter was directed to be listed for admission after the expiry of the aforesaid period. On the other hand, upon the application for interim order an order dated 26th March, 1987 was passed directing issue of notice and granting an interim order to the extent of petitioner's service in L. T. grade shall not be dispensed with and she shall be further paid the salary and other allowances till a regular candidate selected by the Commission is made available or her services are terminated in accordance with law, whichever is earlier. Admittedly no steps for service upon the respondent No. 2 has been taken. Neither the respondent No. 2 has been served nor it has entered appearance. The office had put up a note on 26th March, 1987 in the order sheet recording "3 weeks allowed to file counter affidavit. Stay dispensing with of service meantime." "The next order recorded in the order sheet is on 2nd May, 1996 recording that this is a bunch matter and be listed after 10.5.1996 since the cases of Mr. A. K. Yog, counsel for the petitioner were adjourned. BY the next order dated 7th August, 1996, three weeks time and no more was granted for filing counter-affidavit while rejoinder-affidavit was directed to be filed within one week thereafter and the matter was directed to be listed on 23rd September, 1996. It is how the matter was placed for admission before this Court on 23rd September, 1996. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner, when it was brought to his notice that no service was effected on the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, why the writ petition should not be dismissed on account of non-service, contended that without the direction from the Court, the petitioner cannot effect service. When asked to elaborate his submission, he desired the matter to be taken up on the next date in order to enable him to prepare himself on the said question. Accordingly the matter was taken up for hearing on the question of service on 24th September, 1996. Accordingly the matter was so placed for hearing on the said question on 24th. September, 1996. 2. IN the course of the argument, Mr. Accordingly the matter was taken up for hearing on the question of service on 24th September, 1996. Accordingly the matter was so placed for hearing on the said question on 24th. September, 1996. 2. IN the course of the argument, Mr. R. C. Srivastava volunteered to assist the Court along with Mr. Yog. I have heard both of them on the question of notice. Allahabad High Court Rules in Chapter VIII, Rule 12 (Section E) provides for provision of service of notice either by post or by publication. It lays down the procedure as to how publication in the newspaper should be made. It also in Explanation II provides the consequences of non-return of service through registered post while in Explanation I consequences for non-filing of copy of newspaper has been provided in the manner contained in Rule 4, Chapter XIl. In Chapter IX, Rule 10, while dealing with Special Appeal, in clause (iv) provides that the memorandum of appeal shall accompany an affidavit of service. Similarly clauses (v) provides accompaniment of affidavit of service relating to service of application for interim order if the same is desired. Clause (vii) provides that the requisite for registered post service on unrepresented respondents ought to be filed along with the appeal. The mode of service has also been provided. 3. CHAPTER XII deals with the service of notice and summoning of record. Rule 1 of the said CHAPTER speaks of the cases where an order has been made directing notice to issue and cases where records may not be summoned. Rule 2 deals with cases where the record is not requisitioned at once. Rule 3 provides that in no case notice shall be issued unless the process fee or cost of issue of notice has been paid and notice in duplicate in prescribed Form duly filled in have been supplied for service within 10 days from the date on which the order for the issue of notice is made or unless such fee or cost has been paid and such notices have been supplied under the next following Rule and the court has condoned the delay. Rule 4 deals with the effect of non-payment of process fee or cost or supply of notices within time to the effect that If the requisite process fee or cost of issuing notice is not paid or the requisite notices are not supplied within the time prescribed in Rule 3 the case shall be listed for dismissal and shall be dismissed as against the persons who have not been served on account of the default unless on the case being called an application signed by the party or his Advocate or brief holder together with the requisite process fee cost or notices, as the case may be, is presented to the Court or an application similarly signed discharging from the case the persons not served on account of the said default or withdrawing it as against them and the Court deems fit to grant it. The proviso to the said rule makes it clear that in cases where interim order of stay or injunction has been granted, if the applicant fails to take steps for service the office shall list the stay or injunction matter along with the default report before the Court immediately on expiry of 10 days. The second proviso empowers the Chief Justice to delegate his power to condone the delay in supplying the requisite etc to the Registrar/Additional Registrar/Joint Registrar and when no case has been made out for condoning the delay, the matter should be placed before the Court. 4. RULE 10 makes provisions of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the service of notice in all proceedings in this court except the exceptions provided in the provision thereto are satisfied. The above provisions are provisions applicable to appeal and revisions. Section 141 of the Code makes an exception about the applicability of the provisions of the Code in respect of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Chapter XXII, Rules relating to writ proceedings have been incorporated. The procedure for service materially differs from the procedure contained in Chapters VIII, IX and XII. Rule 1 of Chapter XXII makes it clear that where an interim order is sought, a separate application, after furnishing copies together with all documents in support of the plea on the other side against whom the order is sought to be made. The procedure for service materially differs from the procedure contained in Chapters VIII, IX and XII. Rule 1 of Chapter XXII makes it clear that where an interim order is sought, a separate application, after furnishing copies together with all documents in support of the plea on the other side against whom the order is sought to be made. However, upon being satisfied about the urgency, the Court may dispense with the furnishing of copies and papers to the other party. It is further provided that where interim injunction is obtained without serving on the other party and without an opportunity of being heard, in case the other party makes an application for vacating interim order, the same is to be disposed of by the Court within two weeks of receipt of such application and if such application is not so disposed of on the expiry of the said period, the interim order shall stand vacated. Certain exceptions have been made in sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 with regard to service upon a Government or an officer or department of the Government and certain other parties mentioned therein. The service could be effected on the standing counsel and such service may satisfy the requirement of service on the Government authorities. 5. RULE 2 provides for service of notice on such opposite parties named in the application and on such other persons, if any, as the Court may direct, with the exception that unless the Court otherwise directs, it would not be necessary to serve on the party represented by Government Advocate or standing counsel. In the case where therein no party other than the Government, the Court may dispose of the application on merits on the day of first hearing. Sub-rule (3) prescribes that if at the hearing the Court is of opinion that any person who ought to have been served has not been served, the Court may direct the notice to be served on such person and adjourn the hearing. RULE 5A prescribes that at the hearing of the application, any person who desires to be heard may appear to the Court to be a proper person to be heard, he may be heard notwithstanding non- service upon him. RULE 10 provides that an orders passed by the Court is to be communicated for compliance to such person or persons as may be necessary. RULE 10 provides that an orders passed by the Court is to be communicated for compliance to such person or persons as may be necessary. RULE 5 provides for lodging of Caveat and the procedure to be followed when a Caveat is lodged. 6. NOW relying on these Rules, it is contended by both Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Yog that unless there is specific order by the Court, no service can be effected by the parties initiating the proceedings. It is further contended that unless there is specific direction for service by the court, the Registry does not accept requisites or notices. Now a plain reading of Chapter XXII which prescribes specific provision for service which is materially different from the general rules of service as contained in Chapters VIII and XII and Chapter IX while dealing with Special Appeal makes special provision of service with regard to its memorandum of appeal. The presence of different mode and manner of service in different kinds of cases indicates normally that the Rules prescribed for service in respect of a particular proceeding is to be governed by the said provision as has been specified in the Chapter dealing with particular proceedings. The general rules can be applied only when the same are made expressly or impliedly applicable to other proceedings. The provisions of the Code of Civil procedure would be attracted and applied only when the same is so enacted in the Rules itself as it would appear from such provisions incorporating Rules attracting the application of the Code. The procedure relating to service with which we are concerned is a writ proceeding which is dealt with in Chapter XXII. The consequences of non-service has been provided only in cases where interim order is granted. But nothing is provided in respect of cases where interim order has not been granted. Now Rule 10, Chapter XII prescribes that the provision of Order V of the Code shall apply to service of notice in all proceedings in this Court. Chapter XXII does not prescribe the mode and manner of service. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10, Chapter XII, the mode and manner of service as provided in Chapter XXII is to be made according to the provisions contained in Order V, of the Code or in any one of the manner prescribed therein. Chapter XXII does not prescribe the mode and manner of service. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10, Chapter XII, the mode and manner of service as provided in Chapter XXII is to be made according to the provisions contained in Order V, of the Code or in any one of the manner prescribed therein. Chapter XXII also does not prescribe how the steps of service are to be taken. In the absence of specific provision, the provisions contained in Chapter XII is to be taken help of so far as it may apply in the absence of any specific provision in Chapter XXII. By reason thereof, the provisions contained in Chapter XII so far as it fills up the void existing in Chapter XXII would be attracted and applied to supplement Chapter XXII. 7. SO far as Chapters VIII and XII are concerned, notices are issued only when it is directed by the Court. Whereas Chapter XXII in Rule 1 requires notices to be served without the aid of the Court by the parties concerned. Therefore, it is not necessary that a Court's Order is to be therefor effecting such service. Such service is made without the aid of the Court's process by the party itself. Therefore, the Rules recognise the right of entitlement of a party to serve the other party even without an order from the Court before the application is moved. The effect of non-service while obtaining interim order has been clearly laid down. Rule 1 deals with a stage before the application is moved or interim order is obtained. Rule 2, on the other hand, deals with a situation after the application is moved and not rejected. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 prescribes "notice thereof shall be served on such opposite parties named in the application and on such other persons, if any, as the Court may direct." The expression contemplate that an order is to be passed by the Court. Notice thereof are to be served on such opposite parties named in the petition, or such other persons as the Court may direct. Service appears to be mandatory by reason of existence of Rule 1 which clearly lays down service before making application for obtaining interim order unless dispensed with by the Court on the ground of urgency. Notice thereof are to be served on such opposite parties named in the petition, or such other persons as the Court may direct. Service appears to be mandatory by reason of existence of Rule 1 which clearly lays down service before making application for obtaining interim order unless dispensed with by the Court on the ground of urgency. Rules are meant to protect and interest of the other party for which service has been made mandatory with the resultant consequences of non-service even when relaxation contemplated in the proviso provided for urgent cases are obtained so far as application for injunction is concerned. 8. WHEN a person is made party to a proceeding, he is entitled to a notice. Necessity of making parties is to secure that the interest of a person or party is not affected infringing the principle of 'audi alteram partem. There is no escape from serving notice on the parties named in the writ petition. Only in cases where the court specifically dispenses with service on the other parties named or when the party itself moving the petition deletes or seeks to expunge or withdraws the proceedings as against a particular party, otherwise the service is mandatory. Only exceptions are being provided in the Rule to the extent that if the Court directs, the party may be required to serve such other persons as per direction of the Court and it may not require to serve on the Government respondent for whom the service is accepted by the Government Advocate or the standing counsel. The interest of third parties or the other parties are being secured only to further the principle of audi alteram partem by providing various provisions. The question of service is relevant even at the time of hearing for which sub-rule (3) is provided empowering the Court to direct service of notice upon such person when it is of opinion that such person ought to have been served and to wait for his appearance by adjourning the case. Even persons who were not made parties and not served have also been allowed hearing by Rule 5A. The lodging of Caveat is a right recognised to allow hearing to persons who on their volition want to be heard in a matter before an order is passed. Even persons who were not made parties and not served have also been allowed hearing by Rule 5A. The lodging of Caveat is a right recognised to allow hearing to persons who on their volition want to be heard in a matter before an order is passed. The entire arrangement of the provisions clearly indicate the anxiety for securing service on the other party so as to prevent injustice upon such other party by reason of obtaining ex parte order. Therefore, a difficult situation is created because of Rule 2 (1) Chapter XXII due to which a party cannot effect service or take steps for service unless the court directs to effect such service. 9. THUS so far as interim order is concerned, the same is governed by Rule 1, Chapter XXII. The parties cannot escape liability of service when obtaining interim order. It is mandatory to obtain an order dispensing with service in case of urgency in order to obtain interim order without service. Without such order, no interim order can be granted. While granting interim order after dispensing with service it is the duty of this Court to pass appropriate order for service in view of the restrictive procedure provided in Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXII. 10. IT is the duty of the party moving application to serve the other party. In case he is not permitted to serve without the aid of the Court, in that event, it is incumbent on the party to obtain such direction from the Court at his own instance. The party cannot avoid his responsibility and wait for an indefinite period when there is no order by the Court at his own instance. The party cannot avoid his responsibility and wait for an indefinite period when there is no order by the Court to serve the parties named. Only two courses are open to a part-one is to obtain a direction from the Court for service upon the party named or the other he may serve the party even without a direction from the Court in order to ensure that a person who would be effected by order obtained by him an opportunity of hearing, but because of Rule 2 (1), Chapter XXII such step cannot be taken. 11. 11. ADMITTEDLY by reason of such an interpretation made at the Bar, every day cases are coming up that despite long time has lapsed, some times over 10 years, the parties names in the petition have not been served though in majority of cases interim order has been obtained and operating against them. One of the contention of Mr. Yog and Mr. Srivastava is that when an order of a Government order is stayed or when a Government authority is restrained, then the injunction or the stay affects such Government Officer or authority. Therefore, the parties named in the petition are not required to be served unless the Court directs such service. 12. SUCH a contention does not appear to be sound inasmuch as though the order passed by an authority might have some repercussion on the interest of the other party for which they have been named in the petition. Unless the other party is interested in the outcome of the proceeding, it is not necessary to make him a party. If he is a proper and necessary party and even if the interim order affects him indirectly, then also he is a party affected by the interim order. The Government officer or the authority passing the order may not be personally interested or affected by the interim order. The real person affected by reason thereof is the party name in the petition. In view of such a situation, it seems necessary that specific provision eliminating the confusion is required to be incorporated in the Rules itself or it may be thought by appropriate authority so as to issue appropriate direction on the Registry for accepting, notice to be authenticated by the Registry for effecting service by the party. Inasmuch as though the party may serve outside the Registry but there cannot be any question of effecting service through the Registry unless there is a direction by the Court to such an effect. For such purposes, it is for the parry concerned if he wants service through Registry, to obtain appropriate direction for service upon such other party named in the petition or otherwise he has to serve outside the Court by obtaining Dasti notices for which either provision may be made or necessary instructions may be issued to the Department so as to get rid of this technical difficulty where service has not been effected for long years. Such a system would ensure in expediting disposal of matters enabling other party to appear or have notice so as to avail of the benefit of Rule 5A of Chapter XXII or third proviso to Rule 1 of the same Chapter. Unless such a direction is contemplated, the protection provided in the third proviso to Rule 1 sub-rule (3), sub-rule (5) of Rule 2, Rules 4 and 5A would be an illusory right provided to such party and would not have any inkling of information about the case against him in the absence of any such service conveying the information of the entertainment of proceedings before this Court. 13. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, the matter may be placed for orders for passing appropriate orders under Rule 2, as the case may be.