JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has filed this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 22.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3380/95 whereby the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows : The respondents sent requisition to the Employment Exchange, Barmer for sending names of candidates for purpose of direct recruitment against vacancies of two posts of peon and six posts of workshop attendant lying vacant with the respondents. Respondent No. 1 obtained non-availability certificate from the office of Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide its letter dated 1.5.1995. The Employment Exchange, Barmer sent the name of the appellant (sic) was called for written test as well as interview and he was selected. He was given appointment to the post of workshop attendant which was lying vacant in the regular pay scale of that post under proviso to Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963. In pursuance of the aforesaid appointment order, the appellant joined his duties in the forenoon of July 10, 1995 in the office of respondent No. 1. Suddenly without any reason and without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the appellant, his service were terminated by the respondent No. 1 with effect from 20.9.1995 on the ground that approval for the above post was not received from respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid termination order, the appellant approached before the single Judge of this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 380/95 but the above writ petition has been dismissed. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that since the appellant was appointed to serve the State Government and the State Government was the appointing authority, the writ petition was bad for a non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. the State Government. It was further stated that at the time of recruitment, the State Government had issued a ban for recruitment. 5. Learned Counsel has not disputed the factual position that the appellant claims employment from State of Rajasthan and as such the State Government of Rajasthan was a necessary party. It was further stated that at the time of recruitment, the State Government had issued a ban for recruitment. 5. Learned Counsel has not disputed the factual position that the appellant claims employment from State of Rajasthan and as such the State Government of Rajasthan was a necessary party. The appellant has not made State of Rajasthan necessary party in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, suffers for the non-joinder of necessary party. In this connection we may refer to the decision in Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, 1974 Raj LW 415. The D.B. of this Court in the above case after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Udit Narayan Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786 observed that Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be in the case of suit by or against the Central Government, Union of India. On the same analogy, the above principle can be held applicable even to the writ petition. 6. For the above reasons we hold that the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition and the appellant for non-joinder or necessary party i.e. the State Government. The special appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******