JUDGMENT 1. On 14.11.2014, we passed the order in connected DBCWP No. 13449/2012 as follows: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, a candidate for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Mathematics in O.B.C. category in Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, has prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondent University to abide by the UGC Regulations of 2009 ; to set aside the appointments made in pursuance of the Ordinance 317 of the University ; and to start the selections afresh in pursuance to the UGC Regulations of 2009. She has also prayed for the directions that UGC Regulations of 2009 be quashed and set aside to the extent, it permits exemption to Ph.D. Degree holders in appointments upto 11.7.2009. 3. The advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor was issued in November, 2011 inviting applications by 25.1.2012. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement and thereafter filed this writ petition in December, 2012. An interim order was passed protecting the interest of the petitioner to the extent that the appointments, which were going to be made, were made subject to the result of the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the selections were held and a candidate has been selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in Mathematics in O.B.C. Category, for which the petitioner had applied. The appointment was made on 13.2.2013. 4. The University has filed a reply to the writ petition. 5. We find that the person, who has been selected, has not been made party respondent to the writ petition. In the absence of the person, who is going to be affected, no consequential relief can be given to the petitioner. It is fairly well settled that where the rights of a person are affected by the final relief given in the writ petition, such person should be given an opportunity for being heard in the writ petition. 6. In the absence of the person, who is going to be affected, no consequential relief can be given to the petitioner. It is fairly well settled that where the rights of a person are affected by the final relief given in the writ petition, such person should be given an opportunity for being heard in the writ petition. 6. We are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since she has challenged the Ordinance before the selections were held, the writ petition can be heard in absence of the selected/appointed person, liven if during the pendency of the writ petition, a third party interest, which is likely to be affected, is created, no relief can be granted, unless such person is impleaded. 7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file an appropriate impleadment application to implead the person who was selected and appointed, for a fair adjudication of the matter. 8. List on 3rd December, 2014." 2. On the same day, we passed the following order in the present writ petition: "With reference to our order passed today in connected Gurjar (Miss) v. Union of India & Ors. ), we find that in these writ petitions, the persons, who were selected and appointed on the vacant seats, after the filing of the writ petition, on which the petitioners applied, and may be affected by the result of the writ petitions, have not been impleaded as party respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pray for and are allowed two weeks' time to file appropriate impleadment applications to implead the persons who were selected and appointed, for a fair adjudication of the matter. List all the matters again on 3rd December, 2014. A copy of this order be placed in the files of all the connected matters." 3. Petitioner has not filed any application impleading the persons, who are likely to be affected, if the prayers made in the writ petition are allowed. 4. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 5. We are informed by Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the JNV University, that the issues raised in the writ petition, are now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Suseela & ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors., arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 5. We are informed by Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the JNV University, that the issues raised in the writ petition, are now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Suseela & ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors., arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 36023-36032 of 2010, decided on March 16, 2015 . 6. Since the issues raised challenging the Ordinance No.317, vide Notification dated 27.9.2011, are covered by the judgment in P. Suseela's case (supra), no relief can be granted to the petitioner, inasmuch as he has neither identified his status nor has he stated that as to why, despite possessing the NET qualification, he could not succeed in the selection. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not cared to comply with the order dated 14.11.2014 and has not impleaded the persons, who may be affected by the decision taken in this case, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. After dictating the order, the petitioner appeared in person and stated that his Counsel did not inform him of the order dated 14.11 2014, and that the matter may be adjourned for two weeks. 9. We do not find any good ground to adjourn the matter at this stage. All the issues raised are now covered by P. Suseela's case (surpa), decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on March 16, 2015. The prayer is, accordingly, rejected.Petition dismissed. *******