JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. Office has pointed out delay in filing intra-court appeal in support thereof separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. After taking note of the submissions made, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained & deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, application seeking condonation of delay u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. Instant Special Appeal is directed against the order of ld. Single Judge dt. 07.12.2016. 2. The facts in nutshell as emerged from the record are that both the petitioners are members of reserved category and prospective candidates have participated for the post of Assistant Professor (Civil Engineering)/ Structural Engineering in reference to the advertisement dt. 01.06.2007. 3. In the advertisement in reference to which the process was initiated, it was indicated that in the teaching faculty of Professor, Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, policy of reservation shall apply but no separate indication was made as to which of the vacancy of the teaching faculty with subject are reserved for the members of SC/ST. But without any demur, both the petitioners submitted their applications and when the interview dates were notified and they too also received their interview letters, at this fag end approached this Court by filing of the writ petition on 07.01.2008 and appeared in interview in the respective subjects for the post of Assistant Professor (Civil Engineering)/Structural Engineering on 11.01.2008. 4. From the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that both the petitioners found unsuccessful. It is informed that those candidates, who are found suitable in the process selection pursuant to the advertisement dt. 07.01.2008, were appointed in their respective faculties in the year 2008 and as informed, no person has been appointed as Assistant Professor (Structural Engineering) and three candidates were finally selected and appointed as Assistant Professor (Civil Engineering), although copy of the appointment order is not on record. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that any candidate lower in merit in their respective category has been considered for appointment in Civil Engineering or the appointments of Assistant Professors has been made in disregard of policy of reservation. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that any candidate lower in merit in their respective category has been considered for appointment in Civil Engineering or the appointments of Assistant Professors has been made in disregard of policy of reservation. The learned Single Judge was of the view that much water has flown thereafter and such of the selected candidates has not been impleaded as a party-respondent, no order adverse to their interest can be passed behind their back. We too are of the view that after this fact is brought to our notice of the appointment being made and right being conferred to the selected candidates at least they should have been impleaded as party-respondents against whom grievance has been raised and after almost 9 years of their appointment, the rights conferred on the selected candidates could not be divested behind their back. The appellants have not made any efforts to implead them as party-respondents, certainly no order could have been passed in their absence even if there appears some merit in the case of the appellants. 6. After having heard counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that even if there is any prima facie justification of the preliminary facts that adequate vacancy of SC/ST has not been filled pursuant to advertisement dt. 07.01.2008 but unless there is any breach of the policy of reservation, right of the present appellants could not be jeopardized. 7. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2010(12) SCC 130 , the same may not have any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the vacancy was duly notified being reserved for the member of reserved category but that came to be filled by the member of unreserved category and this being an apparent fallacious in the appointment made, which was noticed by the High Court and upheld by the Apex Court, which is not the fact situation in the instant case. Consequently, in our considered view, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed.