JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. Heard through video conferencing 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(I) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the Schedule 7 point 2 of Viniyam 1998 (Annexure P-2) as well as Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in RP No. 492/2017 'Virendra Kumar Soni and Another vs. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board' dated 18-12-2017 (Annexure-P/4) in the interest of justice. (II) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer after completing the 6 years of services in the light of Viniyam 1998 with consequential benefits in the interest of justice. (III) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the promotion to the post of the Executive Engineer after completing the 6 years services with consequential benefit in the interest of justice. (IV) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the relevant record for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. (V) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in the interest of justice." 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer. Prior to his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer and one Virendra Kumar Soni was senior to him. Since Virendra Kumar Soni was not granted promotion, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 28979 of 2018, for promotion. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 17/10/2019 and in compliance of the said order, said Virendra Kumar Soni has been granted two promotions i.e. to the post of Assistant Engineer and thereafter, to the post of Executive Engineer. It is submitted that although Virendra Kumar Soni was senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub-Engineer, but had he been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer along with the petitioner, then he would have become junior to the petitioner because he is a Diploma holder, whereas the petitioner is a Degree holder. It is submitted that although Virendra Kumar Soni was senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Sub-Engineer, but had he been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer along with the petitioner, then he would have become junior to the petitioner because he is a Diploma holder, whereas the petitioner is a Degree holder. Therefore, it is clear that Virendra Kumar Soni, who is junior to the petitioner, has been granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas the respondent is not considering the claim of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that Virendra Kumar Soni would have been junior to him as Assistant Engineer but he has been granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly pointed out that since it is the case of the petitioner that Virendra Kumar Soni, who is junior to the petitioner as Assistant Engineer, has been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, therefore, he should consider as to whether Virendra Kumar Soni is a necessary party or not, because in case if the petitioner is granted promotion, then he may suffer adversely. The counsel for the petitioner repeatedly maintained his stand that since the petitioner is not asking for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer but he is merely asking for his consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, therefore, Virendra Kumar Soni is not a necessary party. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is well-established principle of law that this Court, at the most, can direct the employer to consider the case of the employee for promotion and no specific direction can be given to the employer to grant promotion to the employee. Further, for promotion to the higher post, there should be a vacancy. It is not the case of the petitioner that in case if the petitioner is granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, then Shri Virendra Kumar Soni would not be adversely affected. Further, for promotion to the higher post, there should be a vacancy. It is not the case of the petitioner that in case if the petitioner is granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, then Shri Virendra Kumar Soni would not be adversely affected. This Court repeatedly pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that in case, if the junior is not impleaded as a party, then the petition is liable to be dismissed only on the said ground but he constantly maintained that he does not wish to implead Virendra Kumar Soni, as respondent. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 has held as under:- "28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Another vs. Madan Mohan Joshi and Others, reported in (2008) 6 SCC 797 has held as under:- "16. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, proceeded on the basis as to what would constitute a substantive appointment. The decisions of this Court, whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in arriving at its conclusion may not be of much significance but what is significant is that in the writ petition even Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others who lose their seniority in the event writ petition was to be allowed, were not impleaded as parties. They, in our opinion, should have been impleaded as parties in the writ application. Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others, if the writ petition is allowed, would suffer civil consequences. Inter se seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. [See State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha (2007) 10 SCC 548 ]. The respective rights of seniority of the parties, thus, required determination in their presence." 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. And others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 129 has held as under:- "56. There is another aspect of the matter. The Appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority. [See Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 ]. In Ram Janam Singh (supra) this Court held:.... "It is now almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference to the date of his entry in the service which will be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group of persons, can be treated a class separate from the rest for any preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But, whether such group of persons belong to a special class for any special treatment in matters of seniority has to be decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Normally, such classification should be by statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Normally, such classification should be by statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The far-reaching implication of such rules need not be impressed because they purport to affect the seniority of persons who are already in service." 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610 has held as under:- "36. Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before the tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Singh and others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is difficult to grant." 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187 has held as under:- "13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are disposed to think that in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners." 12. Thus, where the case of the petitioner is that Virendra Kumar Soni who would have been junior to him as Assistant Engineer, then in the considered opinion of this Court, Virendra Kumar Soni is a necessary party and since the counsel for the petitioner has refused to implead him as a respondent in spite of repeated warnings, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the aforesaid ground.