JUDGMENT Per : Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ. These special appeals have arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 December 2015. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions challenging the selections which were conducted by the Aligarh Muslim University for the posts of Assistants (Administration). 2. An advertisement was issued on 1 December 2014 by which posts in various categories were advertised for selection. Among them were 61 posts of Assistants (Administration). The qualifications which were prescribed for the posts were as follows : "76. Assistants (Admin.), (61) Scale/Pay Band : Rs. 9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs. 4200 plus allowances. QUALIFICATIONS - ESSENTIAL : 1. Bachelor's degree from a recognised University. 2. Three years experience in the capacity of Upper Division Clerk (Administration) or equivalent in a University/ Academic Institution/ Central Government/ State Government/ Government Undertaking. 3. Knowledge of Computer specially MS OFFICE." 3. A written examination was held, consisting of 70 marks followed by an interview of 70 marks. On the basis of the marks awarded in the written examination and the interview, an office memo was issued on 13 August 2015 notifying the names of 58 persons who were selected. Subsequently, on 31 August 2015, an additional 12 persons were notified for temporary appointment on the post of Assistant (Administration) in the same pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- against temporary vacant posts for a period of one year or till the vacancy exists or regular appointment is made. 4. In the writ petitions which were filed before the learned Single Judge, there was a challenge to the office memo dated 13 August 2015 and to an order issued by the Deputy Registrar (Administration) on 18 August 2015. The appointment of 12 additional candidates on 31 August 2015 was also questioned. 5. In the counter affidavit which was filed by the University, it is stated that as against 58 vacancies, 633 applications were received. The written test was held on 6 June 2015 and the interview was conducted on 21 July 2015. After the vacancies were advertised and before the written examination was held, a Screening Committee decided upon the issue of equivalence since the initial qualification required by the advertisement was three year's experience in the capacity of an Upper Division Clerk (Administration)1 or equivalent from a University, Academic Institution, Central Government, State Government or Government undertaking. 6. After the vacancies were advertised and before the written examination was held, a Screening Committee decided upon the issue of equivalence since the initial qualification required by the advertisement was three year's experience in the capacity of an Upper Division Clerk (Administration)1 or equivalent from a University, Academic Institution, Central Government, State Government or Government undertaking. 6. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the decision of the Screening Committee was stated to be as follows : "5. That the committee decided that while determining the equivalence as UDC: - (a) The gross salary of the applicant should be equivalent to an UDC or above during their employment considered for their eligibility; OR (b) The work performed by the applicant should be of an UDC, i.e., work related to the management of an office which including typing, record keeping, preparing letters and notes etc. AND (c) The above mentioned work should be performed in a Central Government/ State Government/ University/ Academic Institution/Government Undertaking office Academic Institution is a very wide term which includes all types of institution of academic nature including schools." 7. In the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge by two persons, five selected candidates were impleaded respectively as respondents 7 to 11. The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 23 December 2015 set aside the entire selection. The learned Single Judge held that the experience of having worked in a University, Academic Institution, Central Government, State Government or Government Undertaking has to be considered together and hence the University or Academic Institution must be one which is situated in India and not in any foreign country. Secondly, the learned Single Judge held that "the rules of the game" were changed mid-way during the process of selection, since norms of equivalence were devised by the Screening Committee after the advertisement was issued. This, in view of the learned Single Judge, vitiated the selection. Thirdly, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the advertisement did not provide for determining equivalence on the basis of salary and hence a large number of persons who may have had an equivalent pay scale of UDC could not have applied in pursuance of the advertisement because the advertisement was silent on this aspect of the matter. 8. 8. As a result of the decision of the learned Single Judge, the entire selection process has been set aside, including the selection of persons who were already working in the University as UDCs. 9. Before this Court, it is stated that in the office-memo dated 31 August 2015 by which the names of 58 candidates were notified for appointment, 12 were in-service candidates of the University who are already working as UDCs. The submission is that, insofar as these candidates are concerned, there was no issue pertaining to equivalence since they already held the post and had the requisite experience as prescribed by the advertisement. Yet, it is urged that their appointments have also been set aside by the learned Single Judge though there could be no objection to the legitimacy of those appointments. 10. Faced with this difficulty, it is urged on behalf of the original petitioners by the learned Senior Counsel that they would be ready and willing to give up their challenge to the appointment of 12 persons who were notified from the in-service candidates on 31 August 2015. However, it is submitted that in view of the illegality which was found by the learned Single Judge, save and except for this part, the rest of judgment may be affirmed. 11. The result of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is that the entire selection process has been quashed and set aside. Save and except for five candidates, original respondents 7 to 11, the other candidates who would be directly affected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge were not impleaded as parties to these proceedings. In our view, before setting aside their appointments, it is but necessary and proper that the principles of natural justice be observed which would require that persons who are likely to be affected by the reliefs sought in judicial proceedings should have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. This becomes all the more a necessary in this case in view of the fact that the credentials of individual candidates were sought to be called into question on the ground that though they have no experience of working as UDCs, in one of the organizations specifically mentioned in the advertisement, they were sought to be selected merely on the basis of equivalence of pay. 12. 12. Before setting aside selections on this ground, it was necessary, in our view, that the affected candidates should have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings and heard. Absent this, the procedure which has been adopted by the learned Single Judge of setting aside the entire batch of appointments has become vulnerable. It is not as if the five impleaded candidates were representative of the entire group. The group, as we have noted, also consists of in-service candidates. The issue as to whether, twelve appointments only of the in-service candidates can be saved, is an aspect which also merits consideration before the learned Single Judge, in the event, that the entire selection is found to be vitiated. 13. We clarify that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits which would be urged before and decided by the learned Single Judge. 14. Hence, we allow these special appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 December 2015. The writ petitions shall stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge. However, we grant liberty to the original petitioners to move an application for amending the writ petitions so as to implead the candidates who would be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings as parties before the learned Single Judge. 15. The special appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.