JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order, dated 23rd October, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Original Application, being OA No.317-HP-2008, titled Suresh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, was allowed, and the selection and appointment of original respondent No.3, namely, Budhi Chand, (respondent No.2 herein), was quashed, (for short, the impugned order). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-employer has sought the quashment of the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order works adversely against Budhi Chand, respondent No.2 herein. 3. The impugned order adversely affected the rights and interests of respondent No.2, namely, Budhi Chand, who has not questioned the impugned order on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to him. 4. Only the employer has laid a challenge to the impugned order on the grounds taken in the writ petition. Thus, the moot question is – Whether the employer has a right to challenge the impugned order, whereby the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 has been quashed?. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 5. In case selection of an appointee is quashed in view of the judgment rendered by a judicial forum, it is only the appointee who is aggrieved and not the employer and the employer has no right to question the impugned judgment. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Sub- Inspector Roop Lal and another vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 644, wherein, in paragraph 24, the Apex Court has observed thus: “24. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, filed review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned. 6. Having glance of the above discussion, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.