JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 29th October, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWP No.1715 of 2010, titled Krishan Lal versus State of H.P. and others, (for short, the impugned judgment). The following relief was sought by the original writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) in the writ petition: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the Ld. Presiding Judge, Shimla, Annexure-P/6 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.1 and 2 may kindly also be directed to assign the seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. November 1996 when the petitioner was initially engaged on work.” 2. The petitioner had sought quashment of the order, dated 16th February 2010, (Annexure P-9), passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla, in case titled as Krishan Lal versus Superintending Engineer, IPH Division, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. and also sought writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to assign seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. November, 1996. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held the petitioner entitled to seniority over and above his juniors, namely, Seema Kumari and Vijay Singh or any other person junior to him, who were not parties before the Writ Court or before this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The impugned judgment is bad also for the reason that it could not have been passed without hearing the affected persons. 3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the writ petition to the Writ Court for fresh adjudication. Ordered accordingly. The Writ Petition be listed before the writ Court, having roster, on 4th June, 2014. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to file application to array the necessary persons as party in the array of respondents in the main writ petition. He is at liberty to take steps before the Writ Court. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, along with the miscellaneous application(s), if any.