Judgment K.K. Trivedi, J. ( 1. ) THE aforesaid two writ appeals have been filed against the order dated 27.8.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.97/2008(S) filed by the respondent No.1, decided by learned single Judge of this Court. THErefore, both the writ appeals are heard and are being disposed of by this order. ( 2. ) THE facts as mentioned in Writ Appeal No. 1013/2010 are taken for consideration. The respondent No. 1 who was appointed as Registrar in the respondent No.2 Institute on 22.10.1990, was said to be compulsory retired by an order dated 28.9.2007, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.97/08(S) contending inter alia that he could not have been compulsory retired in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) as the entire consideration of his case was done in complete violation of the settled norms. The learned single Judge entertained the writ petition, issued the notices, response were filed by the respondents and after hearing at length, passed the impugned order, set aside and quashed the order of compulsory retirement with a direction to reinstate the petitioner/respondent No.1 in service with all the consequential benefits. ( 3. ) THE contentions commonly raised by learned senior counsels for the appellant are that the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the fact that the entire service record of the respondent No. 1 was considered and taking note of other fact that the respondent No. 1 was treated to be a deadwood, was rightly compulsory retired. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the initial appointment of the appellant was not in accordance to the Rules and since he could not have been initially appointed as Registrar if an order was passed compulsory retiring him, no error was committed by the employer. ( 4. ) THE other ground raised by learned senior counsel is that after compulsory retiring the respondent No. 1, the proper procedure as per the Rules in vogue at present was initiated and a candidate was selected and appointed on the post of Registrar of the Institution. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court and even the respondent No. 1 has made an application for grant of interim relief. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court and even the respondent No. 1 has made an application for grant of interim relief. Despite knowledge of such a fact, the respondent No. 1 did not implead the newly recruited Registrar of the Institution as a party in the writ petition and, therefore, no effective relief could have been granted to the respondent No. 1 by the learned single Judge even if the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 was to be allowed. Thus, it is contended that in fact the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have examined the laws placed for our consideration. ( 5. ) THE findings reached by the learned single Judge with respect to consideration of the case of the respondent No. 1 for his compulsory retirement are scrutinised in view of various laws laid down by the Apex Court. On careful consideration, it has rightly been found by the learned single Judge that the committee constituted to scrutinise the case of respondent No. 1/petitioner has relied on a report of enquiry conducted under the orders of the State Government, behind the back of respondent No. 1 /petitioner. No opportunity of hearing whatsoever was given to the respondent No. 1 /petitioner in that enquiry and a report was given with respect to certain conducts of the respondent No. 1/petitioner. According to us, such a finding reached by the learned single Judge is just and proper. This particular aspect can be examined in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umed Bhai M. Patel [ (2001) 3 SCC 314 ], where their Lordships have held that the previous misconduct for which punishment has been awarded, cannot be taken into consideration for holding an employee fit for compulsory retirement. In the present case, even the respondent No. 1/petitioner was not only denied any opportunity of hearing in the so called enquiry, but the same was not directly conducted by an employer for a service misconduct of its employee. In our considered opinion, there was no occasion for the screening committee to take into consideration a report of such an enquiry conducted ex parte. Such a finding of learned single Judge has not been nor could be assailed by the appellant. In our considered opinion, there was no occasion for the screening committee to take into consideration a report of such an enquiry conducted ex parte. Such a finding of learned single Judge has not been nor could be assailed by the appellant. We do not find any error in such consideration by the learned single Judge, therefore, such findings of the learned single Judge are not liable to be disturbed. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by learned single Judge with respect to the order of compulsory retirement, the procedure adopted by the appellant, and a declaration to the effect that such a course was not rightly adopted by the appellants and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No, 1 is not to be sustained. ( 6. ) THE other ground raised by the appellant, more particularly about impleadment of a necessary party, the respondent No.4 in W. A.No.975/2010, who was subsequently selected and appointed as Registrar in the Institution, as is indicated in Writ Appeal No.975/2010 and bringing this fact to the notice of the Court as well as the respondent No, 1 herein and not taking any action by the respondent No. 1/petitioner in that respect, it is urged that no effective order granting a relief to the respondent No. 1 /petitioner could have been passed by the learned single Judge. Our attention is drawn to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. [ 2011 (6) SCC 570 ], wherein dealing in some what similar circumstances, the Apex Court has held in paragraph 31 of the report as under :- "31. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. THE principles enshrined in the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of nonjoinder of necessary party, the petitioner-plaintiff may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. THE litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. THE litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In service jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity. In case the services of a person are terminated and another person is appointed at his place, in order to get relief, the person appointed at his place is the necessary party for the reason that even if the petitioner- plaintiff succeeds, it may not be possible for the Court to issue direction to accommodate the petitioner without removing the person who filled up the post manned by the petitioner-plaintiff. (Vide Prabodh Verma V. State of U.P., Ishwar Singh V. Kuldip Singh, Tridip Kumar Dingal V. State of W.B., State of Assam V. Union of India and Public Service Commission V. Mamta Bisht.) More so, the public exchequer cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the salary of two persons against one sanctioned post." It is thus, contended that learned single Judge though was of the view that the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was liable to be allowed, no effective relief of reinstatement in service could have been granted to the respondent No.1 in view of the fact that deliberately and knowingly, the respondent No. 1 has not impleaded the necessary party in the writ petition. ( 7. ) FACING with such a situation when asked, the respondent No.1 has submitted that he moved an application in the writ petition pointing out the fact that the advertisement for recruitment on the post of Registrar of the appellant Institution has been issued after compulsory retirement of the respondent No.1 and a prayer for grant of interim relief was made. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that since an order was passed by the learned single Judge in the pending writ petition on 21.10.2009, where an observation was made by the learned single Judge to the effect that "the writ petition was against the order dated 28.9.2007, whereby the writ petitioner has been retired compulsory and in case the petition succeeds, the writ petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits," he did not consider it necessary to implead the selected candidate as a respondent in the writ petition. ( 8. ( 8. ) IN our considered opinion, such an action on the part of the respondent No.1 was not justified. He was aware of the fact that the respondent No.4 in the Writ Appeal No.975/2010 was already selected and appointed on the post of Registrar of the appellant INstitution and, therefore, she had become a necessary party in the writ petition. Without the impleadment of the said person as a party, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of J. S. Yadav (supra), no effective relief could have been granted to the respondent No. 1. To this extent writ appeals deserve to be and are partly allowed. For the aforementioned reasons while affirming the order of the learned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 97/2008(S) with respect to quashment of the order dated 28.9.2007 (Annx. P/31 to the writ petition) to the extent that the said order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed against the respondent No. 1 compulsory retiring him from the post. However, since the respondent No.1 has not impleaded the necessary party, the one who is going to be affected by granting other consequential benefits to the respondent No.1, rest of the part of the order of the learned single Judge, directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1 /petitioner on the post held by him at the time of compulsory retirement and granting him all the consequential benefits and salary and other monetary benefits in accordance to his entitlement, after deducting the post retiral benefits already granted to him after his compulsory retirement, is hereby set aside. This is done because the aforesaid part of the order of the learned single Judge will in fact adversely affect the new recruit the respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.975/2010 without her impleadment as a party in the writ petition. ( 9. ) IN the result, the writ appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove, without any order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.