Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 17.5.2010, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition No. 1736 of 2008, Dr. Hari Shankar Shiromani Vs. State of U.P. & another, wherein the claim petition has been allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to treat the opposite party no. 4 (claimant), regularized in service immediately on completion of three years' services with effect from the date of his initial appointment and to accord him appropriate place in the seniority list above the selectees of 1985 batch. The inter se seniority of the claimant and other appointees, who were appointed along with him on 29.5.1978, shall be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Regularization of adhoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. It was further directed that the case of the claimant shall be considered for promotion to the next higher post after correcting the seniority list in the light of the above with effect from the due date or if there is any junior promoted, then with effect from the date of promotion of his junior and the judgment and order shall be complied with within a period of three months. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the direction issued in the impugned judgment adversely affects the petitioners and the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment ex parte without providing an opportunity to the petitioners and the similarly situated other persons although they were the necessary parties before the Tribunal. The petitioners were not made parties and in case the impugned judgment is complied with, the petitioners would be adversely affected. The respondent no. 4, would be made senior to them by altering the seniority list on the post of Medical Officer in the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Government of U.P. 4. The petitioners were not made parties and in case the impugned judgment is complied with, the petitioners would be adversely affected. The respondent no. 4, would be made senior to them by altering the seniority list on the post of Medical Officer in the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Government of U.P. 4. As per the petitioners, the facts of the case, in brief, are that some persons were appointed on the post of Medical Officers in the Department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services through the Departmental Selection Committee on adhoc basis in the years 1971-1973. The post of Medical Officer was upgraded as a gazetted post w.e.f. 1.11.1975 by virtue of the Government Order dated 18.12.1972. The appointees of the years 1971 and 1973, were also upgraded and such 20 persons continued in the service till they were confirmed on the post of Medical Officers on 1.1.1990. By order dated 8.11.1975, 124 persons were directly appointed on the post of Medical Officers in the Department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services on adhoc basis for a period of one year. In December, 1981, these Medical Officers of the year 1975, were regularized on the post of Medical Officers. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain persons were appointed on the post of Medical Officers purely on adhoc basis on 29.5.1978, without any recommendation from the Commission. However, in the year 1979 through an advertisement dated 19.11.1979, the Public Services Commission advertised 209 posts of Medical Officers for direct appointment. The petitioners as well as certain other Medical Officers applied against the said posts and while the selection process by the Commission was in progress, 203 persons including the petitioners were given adhoc appointment for a period of one year vide order dated 11.10.1983. It was in the year 1985 that the petitioners were found qualified for the post of Medical Officers in pursuance of the aforesaid vacancies advertised by the Commission and were substantively appointed on the post of Medical Officers. 6. It is submitted that to the best of knowledge of the petitioners, the respondent no. 4, despite having opportunity to face the Commission for substantive appointment on the post of Medical Officer did not apply for the said post, although many of the adhoc appointees of 1978 batch applied and were selected by the Commission. 6. It is submitted that to the best of knowledge of the petitioners, the respondent no. 4, despite having opportunity to face the Commission for substantive appointment on the post of Medical Officer did not apply for the said post, although many of the adhoc appointees of 1978 batch applied and were selected by the Commission. In fact, approximately 78 Medical Officers who were appointed on adhoc basis in the years 1978, 1980 and 1983, were selected by the Public Services Commission and were given substantive appointment vide order dated 31.10.1985. 7. The State Government vide order dated 28.1.1987, regularized the services of 209 Medical Officers, including the opposite party no. 4, on the post of Medical Officer in accordance with the Regularization Rules. Ultimately, the final seniority list dated 13.8.2001, was published by the Department for the post of Medical Officers, which included the names of Medical Officers appointed in the year 1971, 1973, 1975, 1985 and 1987. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed above the Medical Officers including the opposite party no. 4, who were regularized in the year 1987. After the publication of the said seniority list, a dispute arose in respect of the seniority position between the appointees of the year 1971 and 1973 and the adhoc appointees of the year 1975, who were directly appointed on 8.11.1975. In this regard a claim petition No. 920 of 2001, was filed before the State Public Services Tribunal in which the learned Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 14.10.2009, directed the State Government to determine the seniority of all the appointees of the year 1971 and 1973. 8. It is submitted that since the controversy in the claim petition No. 920 of 2001, was restricted between the appointees of the year 1971, 1973 and 1975, who were above the petitioners in the seniority list dated 13.8.2001, therefore, the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2009, passed in the said claim petition, did not affect the seniority of the petitioners in any way. Moreover, the order dated 14.10.2009 could not be complied for the reasons that all the Medical Officers of the year 1971 and 1973, retired during the pendency of the said claim petition and if anyone was left he/she also retired immediately after passing of the judgment and order dated 14.10.2009. The last person amongst them was Dr. Umesh Chandra Tripathi, who also retired on 31.12.2009. The last person amongst them was Dr. Umesh Chandra Tripathi, who also retired on 31.12.2009. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after issuance of the seniority list dated 13.8.2001, the seniority of the petitioners remained undisputed till 2007. However, it was in the year 2007 that a Writ Petition No. 574 of 2007, Om Prakash Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. & others, was filed before the Supreme Court in which the opposite party no. 4, was also a party. In the said writ petition the order dated 13.8.2001 was assailed. However, the Apex Court by order dated 26.10.2007, had dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the High Court. Thereafter a Writ Petition No. 23099 of 2008, was preferred by the opposite party no. 4 along with others, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy available before the learned Tribunal. Finally the claim petition No. 1736 of 2008, was preferred by the opposite party no. 4, before the learned Tribunal in which the impugned judgment and order has been passed. 10. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said claim petition the petitioners as well as other selectees of 1985 batch were not made parties, although the opposite party no. 4, was seeking the seniority over the petitioners as well as other selectees of 1975 batch. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has completely misread and misapplied the provisions of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991. The learned Tribunal has committed the gross error in directing the opposite parties to treat the opposite party no. 4, regularized in service immediately on completion of three years with effect from the date of his initial appointment and to accord him the place in the seniority list above the selectees of 1985 batch. 12. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4, submitted that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the contentions raised in the claim petition and has rightly come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 4, is entitled to get the benefit of the adhoc services rendered by him. 12. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4, submitted that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the contentions raised in the claim petition and has rightly come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 4, is entitled to get the benefit of the adhoc services rendered by him. The impugned judgment is a well-reasoned judgment in which the learned Tribunal has also considered the various pronouncements of the Apex Court cited in favour of the claimant. The State Government has contested the claim petition and, therefore, it cannot be said to be an ex parte judgment. 13. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied on its judgment passed on 19.10.2009, in claim petition no. 920 of 2001 and the other connected claim petitions, as the controversy involved in the said claim petition was of similar nature. 14. We have considered various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. It is the admitted position that the claim petition No. 1736 of 2008, was filed by the opposite party no. 4, in which the petitioners were not impleaded as parties. The said claim petition was filed claiming the following relief: "(i) To direct the respondents to count 9 years temporary/adhoc service of petitioner towards seniority and provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer and promote him accordingly w.e.f. his juniors have been promoted. (iii) To direct the respondents to provide the benefit of time scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.6.1992 on completion of 14 years of service and pay difference of salary accordingly with interest. (iv) Issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances existing in the present case. (v) Award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner throughout." 16. It was contended before the learned Tribunal that the opposite party no. 4, is entitled to be given the benefit of 9 years of adhoc services rendered by him for the purpose of awarding seniority as well as other service benefits including the promotion etc. 17. (v) Award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner throughout." 16. It was contended before the learned Tribunal that the opposite party no. 4, is entitled to be given the benefit of 9 years of adhoc services rendered by him for the purpose of awarding seniority as well as other service benefits including the promotion etc. 17. It is also admitted between the parties that the petitioners were selected through the State Public Services Commission and were given substantive appointment vide order dated 31.10.1985, whereas the service of the opposite party no. 4 was regularized under the Government Order dated 28.1.1987. 18. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 4, is entitled to get the benefit of service from the date of his initial appointment towards seniority and, therefore, he can not be placed below the direct recruits of 1985, in the seniority list and his seniority will have to be determined above them in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Regularization Rules, 1979 as amended in 1984. The learned Tribunal has directed the opposite parties to treat the opposite party no. 4, regularized in service immediately after completion of three years from the date of his initial appointment and accord him proper place in the seniority list above the selectees of 1985 batch. It is further directed that the inter se seniority of the respondent no. 4, and other appointees, who were appointed along with him on 29.5.1978, shall be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of U.P. Regularization of Adhoc Appointment (on posts within the purview of Public Services Commission), Rules 1979. The learned Tribunal has also directed that the opposite party no. 4, shall be considered for promotion to the next higher post after correcting the seniority list with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted. 19. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is emphatically clear that in case the said judgment is to be complied with, the opposite party no. 4 would be placed above the petitioners as well as other selectees of 1985 batch in the seniority list of Medical Officers in the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services. 20. In the case of Prabodh Verma and others Vs. 4 would be placed above the petitioners as well as other selectees of 1985 batch in the seniority list of Medical Officers in the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Services. 20. In the case of Prabodh Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. & others (1984) 4 SCC 251 , it has been held that the High Court ought not to have decided the writ petition without the persons who would be virtually affected by its judgment being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large. The relevant paragraphs 28 & 50 of the said judgment are quoted below: "28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh Case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties - not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be virtually affected by its judgment being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." "50. (1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." 21. Relying on the decision in the case of Prabodh Verma and others (Supra), the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Suresh Vs. Yeotmal District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 558, observed as under: "16. This Court in Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724 observed: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 16). "16. In Prabodh Verma this Court held: (SCC pp.273-74,para 28) "28....The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties" "17. The dispute raised by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court, therefore, was not maintainable. It was so held by the High Court also. " 22. The dispute raised by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court, therefore, was not maintainable. It was so held by the High Court also. " 22. In a recent judgment, the Apex Court in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1200, made the following observations: "7.In case the respondent no. 1 wanted her selection against the reserved category vacancy, the last selected candidate in that category was a necessary party and without impleading her, the writ petition could not have been entertained by the High Court in view of the law laid down by nearly a Constitution Bench of this Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & another, AIR 1963 SC 786 , wherein the Court has explained the distinction between necessary party, proper party and proforma party and further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreso, proviso to Order 1, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after called CPC) provide that non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 141 CPC but the principles enshrined therein are applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh V. State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1153 ; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel V. Nandlal, Khodidas Barat & others AIR 1974 SC 2105 ; and Sarguja Transport Service V. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalio & others, AIR 1987 SC 88 ." "8. In Prabodh Verma & others V. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1985 SC 167 ; and Tridip Kumar Dingal & others V. State of West Bengal & others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 ), it has been held that if a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties." 23. Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, has submitted that the claim petition before the learned Tribunal was contested by the State Government and the interest of the petitioners was duly represented by the State Government before the Tribunal. Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, has submitted that the claim petition before the learned Tribunal was contested by the State Government and the interest of the petitioners was duly represented by the State Government before the Tribunal. In support of his submissions he has relied on the judgment in the case of V.V. Joseph and others Vs. Union of India and others 1993 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 627, wherein it has been held that: "5.After examining all the circumstances we do not agree with the petitioners that they had no information of the litigation at all. It appears that they were satisfied by the stand of the Union of India taken in their favour and in pursuing the matter from stage to stage. The Union of India, therefore, should in the present case, be deemed to have represented the petitioners' interest and the judgment cannot now be reconsidered. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition, but in the circumstances without costs." 24. Considering the overall position in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that since the impugned judgment clearly affects the petitioners and in case the directions issued in the impugned judgment are to be given effect to, the petitioners would be adversely affected and, therefore, they were necessary parties before the learned Tribunal and should have been afforded opportunity of hearing by the Court concerned. The impugned judgment passed in the absence of the petitioners is, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law. 25. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.5.2010, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition No. 1736 of 2008, is liable to be set aside, which is hereby set aside. 26. The writ petition is allowed. 27. The matter is remanded back to the State Public Services Tribunal with direction to reconsider and decide the same on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Since the claim petition relates to the year 2008, we find it appropriate to make a request to the learned Tribunal to make all possible efforts to decide the claim petition expeditiously, preferably within the next four months from the date a certified copy of this judgment and order is produced. 28. Since the claim petition relates to the year 2008, we find it appropriate to make a request to the learned Tribunal to make all possible efforts to decide the claim petition expeditiously, preferably within the next four months from the date a certified copy of this judgment and order is produced. 28. However, it is clarified that we have intentionally not addressed ourselves on the merits of the claim of the rival parties as we feel that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Tribunal itself.