ORDER : S.MANIKUMAR, J. I.A.No.5 of 2020 has been filed by three candidates, who claimed to have been included in the rank list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission to the post of Lower Division Clerk under various Departments of the Government, seeking to implead themselves as additional respondents in W.P.(C)No.14141 of 2020. Contentions raised by the petitioners in I.A.No.5 of 2020, sought to be impleaded as additional respondents in W.P.(C)No.14141 of 2020, are as hereunder: “(6) ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Enormous number contract appointments are being made under COVID-19 periods. Similar hasty steps are being taken to regularise the service of the persons appointed on contract basis even when there is a valid rank list prepared by the PSC. (7) It is submitted that in welfare state, a democratically elected government and its machinery cannot act in such arbitrary manner denying the rightful appointment to the eligible candidates. When such arbitrary actions are continued by the State and instrumentalities, the only option left with the citizen is to express their dissent through a protest. If the government and its instrumentality acts in a fair and prudent manner, then the citizen will not be forced to come out to the streets to express their dissent. When the government continues its arbitrary actions, a constitutional court cannot tie the hands of the citizens and prevent them exercising their right of dissent as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. (8) The petitioners and the persons included in various rank lists prepared by the Public Service Commission has been peacefully protesting against the arbitrary actions of the government in the recruitment to public posts. In the meantime the petitioners approached this Hon'ble filing the above Writ Petition and this Court by interim order dated 15.07.2020 this Court has ordered that there shall not be any gathering, to be specific, demonstrations/ processions/ agitations in the State till July 31. A further direction was given to the State government and the State Police Chief (SPC) to initiate that all preventive measures must be ensured so that there shall not be any processions/agitations in violation of the guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority for the Unlock 2 period. Under the guise of the order, the state government has curbed all the protest in the State. Under the guise of the order, the state government has curbed all the protest in the State. (9) It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines issued in view of the pandemic. However even during the pandemic period the government and its instrumentalities are relentlessly continuing their illegal actions especially pertaining to the recruitment to public posts. It is the actions of the government that has forced the petitioners and other aggrieved parties to express their dissent by way public protest. If in such circumstances, the citizens are barred from exercising their right to dissent, the situation is as good as an internal emergency. (10) It is submitted that the government is continuing to issue various orders regularising the services of the temporary employees and appoint contract employees towards sanctioned posts and beyond. Hasty steps are being initiated on every departments to regularise the service of temporary employees at the earliest. The government under the guise of the interim order in this case was able to stop all the genuine protests and agitations against their illegal actions in the recruitment to public posts. A proper enquiry is utmost necessary for the bring light into the catena of illegal appointments made during the COVID-19 pandemic period and earlier which had come to light only during the COVID-19 period. As all the protests are banned by this Court, the applicants and other aggrieved persons cannot express their protest on the illegal deeds continued by the government in matter of recruitment of public appointments and therefore they are unable throw much light into these illegal appointments. It is through such protest, illegal actions are corrected in a democracy. However, the order passed by this court is used as a shield to continue the illegal actions. (11) Thus, the impleading petitioners are highly interested in the outcome of the writ petition. Wherefore, for the above said reasons this applicants seeks the leave of this Hon'ble Court to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents 11, 12 and 13 in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. (11) Thus, the impleading petitioners are highly interested in the outcome of the writ petition. Wherefore, for the above said reasons this applicants seeks the leave of this Hon'ble Court to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents 11, 12 and 13 in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Prayers made in W.P.(C)No.14141 of 2020 are extracted hereunder: “(i) to declare that the large scale public gathering in the name of protest or activities by the political parties in the State, is unconstitutional and illegal, during the phase of Covid 19 regulations and direct the 4th respondent to derecognise such political parties, who are involving in the practices of larger political gatherings, violating the norms issued by the Government, from time to time, during the period of pandemic Covid 19. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writs or order or direction to the 1st and 3rd respondents to take strict actions against the organizers or participants; or both, of large political gatherings, who are acting in violation of existing Covid 19 regulations. (iii) to direct the respondents 5 to 10 and the coalition parties of respondents 8 and 10; their associate organizations, to desist themselves from organizing any kind of political or social activities with large public gatherings, during the period of Covid 19 regulations or violating the Covid 19 regulations issued by the appropriate authorities, from time to time.” 3. Other connected writ petitions have been filed seeking similar reliefs. Taking note of the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005 and the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, New Delhi, this court passed an interim order on 14th July 2020 in W.P.(C)14141 of 2020 and 14196 of 2020. Subsequently, taking note of the periodical orders issued by the Ministries of Health and Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi in relaxing the conditions thereof, in various phases (unlock 1, 2 and 3), we passed the interim orders subsequently. 4. Let us consider what 'lis' means: “In B.Johnson & Company (Builders) v. Minister of Health (1947) 2 All ER 395 at p.399 Lord Greene, M.R.Said: “Lis implies the conception of an issue joined between two parties. The decision of a lis..... is the decision of that issue”. 5. 4. Let us consider what 'lis' means: “In B.Johnson & Company (Builders) v. Minister of Health (1947) 2 All ER 395 at p.399 Lord Greene, M.R.Said: “Lis implies the conception of an issue joined between two parties. The decision of a lis..... is the decision of that issue”. 5. Writ petitions do not contain any pleading relating to appointment or regularisation of candidates in Government service. It is trite law that an interim relief, incidental or ancilliary to the main relief above can only be granted in a writ petition. Instant interlocutory application filed by the petitioners stated to have been included in the rank list to the post of Lower Division Clerk under various departments of the Government for impleadment is wholly misconceived, as they cannot said to be a proper or necessary parties to adjudicate the lis. It cannot be contended that the petitioners have no other remedy to vindicate their grievances. Few decisions as to when a person can be considered as a necessary and proper party to a lis are detailed as follows: (i) In Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum [ AIR 1958 SC 886 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. (ii) In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar [1963 AIR 786, 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 676] 7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled : it is enough if we state the principle. (1) 676] 7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled : it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. 10. The next question is whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi-judicial act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of certiorari the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without the successful party being before it ? Without the presence of the successful party the High Court cannot issue a substantial order affecting his right. Any order that may be issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by the said party, with the result that the tribunal's order would be quashed but the right vested in that party by the wrong order of the tribunal would continue to be effective. Such a party, therefore, is a necessary party and a petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari without making him a party or without impleading him subsequently, if allowed by the court, would certainly be incompetent. A party whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a necessary party. 11. In addition, there may be parties who may be described as proper parties, that is parties whose presence is not necessary for making an effective order but whose presence may facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy. The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein. 12. The long established English practice, which the High Courts in our country have adopted all along, accepts the said distinction between the necessary and the proper party in a writ of certiorari. The English practice is recorded in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, 3rd Edn. (Lord Simonds') thus in paragraph 136 : "The notice of motion or summons must be served on all persons directly affected, and where it relates to any proceedings in or before a court, and the object is either to compel the court or an officer thereof to do any act in relation to the proceedings or to quash them or any order made therein, the notice of motion or summons must be served on the clerk or registrar of the court, the other parties to the proceedings, and (where any objection to the conduct of the judge is to be made) on the judge ........". (iii) In Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education and 2 Ors. reported in [ 1996 (I) MLJ 32 ], a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court following the judgment of Prabodh Verma's case [ 1985(1) SCR 216 ], held that the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are necessary parties.” 6. Though Mr.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proposed petitioners have got a right to get themselves impleaded in the public interest litigations, for the reason that, case of the petitioners who have filed this interlocutory application is against regularisation of contract appointments and that they have no other remedy to vindicate. Lis in the writ petitions relates to disaster management and in particular, against social gathering, in the name of public protests/demonstration etc. 7. In the light of the above, we are of the view thaat the petitioners cannot be said to be directly or indirectly interested in the lis nor would be vitally affected by the decision in the writ petition. 7. In the light of the above, we are of the view thaat the petitioners cannot be said to be directly or indirectly interested in the lis nor would be vitally affected by the decision in the writ petition. 8. In Kerala State Legal Services Authority v. The Court on its Motion reported in [ 2020 (1) KLT 683 ] this Court held thus: “5. Rule 148 of the High Court Rules deals with Addition of parties – All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct. 6. Kerala State Legal Services Authority (petitioners), cannot be said to be adversely affected or aggrieved if any decision to be taken in the suo motu public interest litigation. Wherever addition or striking out parties is done, it is necessary for the Court to consider as to whether such persons are required to be added or struck off to adjudicate upon and settle all the issues effectually and completely. In the light of the above provisions, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (petitioners) may not be required to be impleaded as a party respondent.” 9. Impleading application is beyond the scope of the writ petition. Application deserves to be dismissed with costs. The petitioners have made a claim for impleadment on the sole ground that they have been included in the rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission. It is trite law that mere inclusion in the rank list does not entitle a candidate to claim employment. As the petitioners have made attempt to enter in a Government service, while dismissing the application we refrain from imposing cost. I.A.No.5 of 2020 is dismissed.