JUDGMENT : Anshuman, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- I. For issuance of direction for quashing the published merit list and result vide its Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024. II. For directing the respondent no.1 to publish the result and marks break-up of candidates appeared in computer proficiency test. III. For issuance of direction to respondent no.1 to conduct the interview on the basis of result declared in computer proficiency test without having qualifying criteria in interview as per the rule of 2021. IV. For directing the respondent to declare a final merit list including the marks break-up of all the candidates in public domain with immediate effect. V. For directing the respondent to consider the petitioners in the light of Government of India memorandum dated 09.10.2015 and to prepare a fresh merit list of all the candidates including the petitioners being giving the minimum or average passing marks in stage-IV interview to the petitioners and then considering the petitioners for the purpose of identifying the successful candidates selected to such extent. VI. For quashing the part of the notification dated 03.02.2023 issued by respondent no.1 which requires minimum qualifying marks in stage-IV and to direct the respondent to prepare the merit list considering all the candidates as per the total marks obtained them in all stages in the light of judgment of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 and in case of Aalma Vs. Delhi High Court in Civil Appeal No.6353 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.1 has issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant recruitment examination, 2023 vide its Advertisement No. PHC/01/2023 dated 03.02.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioners in selection process have changed the rule of the game after publication of the advertisement and prior to the result. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.1 has issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant recruitment examination, 2023 vide its Advertisement No. PHC/01/2023 dated 03.02.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioners in selection process have changed the rule of the game after publication of the advertisement and prior to the result. Counsel further submits that the first objection is that the result was not published in public domain and his second contention is that in the rule which is Annexure-P/2 in Part-IV (Rule 6(A)) under Serial No.8, there was no condition of minimum qualification was inserted and examination has to be taken place by virtue of appearance of a person having certain minimum qualification followed by written test followed by computer proficiency test and interview. It is nowhere mentioned in the rule that there shall be minimum cut-off marks in any of the examination. But, in the selection process, minimum cut-off marks has been fixed which is in gross violation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide Annexure-P/5, in the test of computer proficiency, the minimum qualifying marks in word processing test, spread-sheet test and internet proficiency have been divided on the basis of maximum and minimum marks. Counsel submits that vide Annexure-P/8, there was a clear cut undertaking made by the Registrar General, Patna High Court that the detailed result shall be published. But it has never come in the public domain. Counsel submits that similarly in the interview, the minimum marks has been fixed. Counsel submits that under RTI (Right To Information), it has been informed that 148 candidates were disqualified in the computer proficiency test, but interview of all candidates have been taken independent of this point that some of the persons have not completed the computer proficiency test. Counsel relied on a judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 and submits that in the said judgment, it has been categorically held in paragraph no.17 which states that:- “selection to the post involved herein has not been completed in any subsequent years to the selection process under challenge. Therefore, in the instant case, in absence of any statutory requirement of securing minimum marks in interview, the High Court ought to have followed the same principle. Therefore, in the instant case, in absence of any statutory requirement of securing minimum marks in interview, the High Court ought to have followed the same principle. In such a fact- situation, the question of acquiescence would not arise.” Counsel also relied on another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Aalma Vs. Delhi High Court in Civil Appeal No.6353 of 2023 and submits that the said judgment also contended that there will be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Counsel for the petitioners conclusively submits that in the light of the submissions made, since there is a gross violation of the rule made in the recruitment process, the entire recruitment process should be set aside and the published merit list and result vide its Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024 be quashed, along with other reliefs. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand raised preliminary objection and submits that the present writ petition suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party. Counsel further submits that from the main relief of the petitioners, it become crystal clear that they have made request for quashing of the published merit list and result vide its Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024. Counsel submits that the result of all selected candidates have been made and many of them have joined on their respective posts. Counsel for respondent no.1 further submits that counsel for the petitioners has made complete suppression in the pleadings as well as has also suppressed certain documents particularly the result published as vide Annexure-P/8 whose clause-6 is very much clear and states that the names of candidates are in order of merit and their category of selection is indicated against their names at Annexure-1 in Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024. Counsel submits that the petitioners have intentionally not annexed Annexure-1 of the said notice dated 14.03.2024 on the one hand, but on the other has mala-fidely argued before this Court that the result has not been published, it is due to this reason, the petitioners are not in a position to know the names of the selected candidates. 6. In contention of his argument, counsel for respondent no.1 relied on a judgment decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 6. In contention of his argument, counsel for respondent no.1 relied on a judgment decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 in which in paragraph no.28 of the said judgment states that those who are the necessary party if not been added in the writ petition against which the relief has been demanded, such type of case is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed particularly when the counsel for petitioners has completed his entire argument on merit of the case, but not a single time has mentioned and had taken plea before the Court that he wants to add those successful persons or any of the successful persons even in representative capacity as party respondents in this writ. 7. Upon hearing the parties, this Court has put the specific question from the counsel for the petitioners, that in case, the writ petition shall be allowed in favour of the petitioners then, whether the candidates who have been selected and joined their service shall be affected or not? Counsel submits that definitely those persons who have been selected and joined, shall be affected by the result of this writ. 8. In this background, this Court is of the firm view particularly in the light of the decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) in which paragraph no.28 states that atleast, some persons may be added as party respondents in representative capacity, but the petitioners refused to do so and hence, this writ petition in the opinion of this Court is not maintainable due to non-joinder of the necessary party. 9. So far as the arguments made by the counsel for petitioners that result has not been published, this Court has gone through the contents of Notice No.28/R&A dated 14.03.2024 whose paragraph no.6 clearly indicates that there is Annexure-1 attached in the said notice. But, counsel for the petitioners has not annexed the said Annexure-1 in which the names of the successful candidates are indicated. 10. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that counsel for the petitioners has not come before this Court with clean hands and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed on the aforesaid grounds.