Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the seniority list in S2(2)/50779/96-CR, dated 7. 1996 and direct the respondent to fix the seniority of the applicant above the Assistant Engineers who joined service after 25. 1981, the date on which the petitioner was redesignated as Assistant Engineer and grant him all consequential benefits. 2. Except, the Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai, the official respondent, the petitioner has not impleaded, persons who are likely to be affected, consequent to the revision of seniority. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 167 : (1984) 4 SCC 251 that High Court cannot proceed to hear parties and take a decision adverse to those affected persons without getting them or their representatives as parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not impleaded any one of his juniors in this writ petition. “In Rajbir Singh, HFS II v. State of Haryana and Another (1996) 2 SCC 19 , the dismissal of a writ petition, challenging the inter se seniority, without impleading the other persons was confirmed by the Apex Court. In Baskaran v. Commissioner of College Educational and 2 Others (1995) 2 CTC 513 , a Division Bench of this Court following the judgment of Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) case, held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are necessary parties. The Court should dismiss the writ petition, if necessary parties are not impleaded in the writ petition. In yet another decision in Ramarao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Others AIR 2004 SC 1459 : (2004) 2 SCC 76 : (2004) 2 MLJ 66 : 2004-I-LLJ-1061, the Apex Court reiterated the legal position and held that at p. 72 of MLJ: “27. ….An order against the person without impleading him as a party and without giving an opportunity or hearing must be held to be bad in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably, were necessary parties. In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. The appellants herein, keeping in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably, were necessary parties. In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. In the absence of the ‘promotes’ as parties, therefore, it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the impugned judgment.” 3. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Besides, at the time of filing of the original application in the year 1996, the petitioner was 53 years old and in the normal course he would have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. For the above said reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.