JUDGMENT 1. - So far as, D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh is concerned, the writ petition filed by the State was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not impleaded the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whose order was under challenge, as a party in the writ 5 petition. In the present case, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without making the Tribunal a party would not have a reason to dismiss the writ petition. 2. The Writ Petition No. 4309/2001; State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Raju Ram Choudhary and Another has not been decided. This writ to petition is also directed against the order of the Tribunal. In either case, the result will not affect the directions in this case, which have become final. 3. By order dated 21.5.2003 passed in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 55/2003 arising out of D.B. Special Appeal No. 105/2002 Satyadev Aadha v. State of Rajasthan and another , the above two petitions were directed to be listed alongwith the said Contempt Petition. 4. We have heard all these three cases together and passed a separate order in Contempt Petition as the main petition stood disposed of by order datad 14.8.2002. The principal issue raised in all these cases is about considering the cases of petitioners in all cases by considering their respective cases in accordance with standing order No. 7/97 in the light of 5 Menorandum dated 28.1.1999. 5. The D.B. Special Appeal has arisen in a case in which me petitioner has directly approached this Court before approaching the Tribunal 6. Moreso. there is no dispute between the parties that the like order which has been passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 105/2002 Satyadev Aadha v. State and another on 14.8.2002 has been complied with and the relief has been granted to the petitioner by considering the candidature of applicants for promotion in terms of standing order No. 7/97 in the light of the memorandum dated 28 1 1999. 7. Appeal No. 105/2002 Satyadev Aadha v. State and another on 14.8.2002 has been complied with and the relief has been granted to the petitioner by considering the candidature of applicants for promotion in terms of standing order No. 7/97 in the light of the memorandum dated 28 1 1999. 7. The above two cases are by the persons similarly situated but in both cases the incumbents had approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which by its order in both cases has granted the similar relief to the incumbents by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in like manner in which the relief has been granted in above matters on representation. 8. In this background, we deem it just and proper to hear the above two cases together and dispose them of which this common order. 9. The appeal ( State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh and another ) is barred by time by 101 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation 25 Act has also been moved. We allow the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal may be assigned regular number. 10. This disposes of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation 11. The case of the respondent in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3479/2002 (DR/J) is that he has approahced the Tribunal and Tribunal has directed the appellants to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the standing order/circular vide its judgment dated 25.7.2001. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge because the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal was not impleaded as a party which was necessary party in the light of the judgment rendered in Udit Narain Singh Malparia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Ant. reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 . The appeal is against that order. 12. Though, we are of the opinion that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed only on the ground of non impleading the party without giving opportunity to the petitioner for impleading the Tribunal as a necessary party, assuming that the Tribunal was necessary party. reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 . The appeal is against that order. 12. Though, we are of the opinion that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed only on the ground of non impleading the party without giving opportunity to the petitioner for impleading the Tribunal as a necessary party, assuming that the Tribunal was necessary party. However, in view of the fact that in similar matters, directions were issued by this Court which has directly come before this Court to make a representation before the 45 concerned authority and the concerned authority was directed to decide their cases and in those cases the authority itself granted relief by reading documents namely the standing order No. 7/97 and memorandum dated 28.1.1999. we are of the opinion that there is no failure of justice in the present case. 13. From the order passed by the Tribunal no different result can be arrived at, merely because he claims that the forum which has been approached by the concerned incumbent was different. In view thereof, this Special Appeal is dismissed on merit. 14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309/2001, is identical to Writ Petition No. 772/2002 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Sukhpal Singh and Anr. which was dismissed by the learned Single judge on the ground that the Tribunal was not made a party. The Special Appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by us as discussed above after condoning delay in filing appeal. As we have not found it fit to interfere the order passed by the learned Tribunal in this regard, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending. 15. The writ petition is also dismissed accordingly. In this writ petition the petitioner has impleaded Tribunal as a party and therefore, the question about non-joinder of the party does not arise in this case.Both Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******