K .VIVEK KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17100/2025 K .VIVEK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, SPC with Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP and Mr. Shaunak Dutta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 12.11.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been presently granted seniority w.e.f. 2018, seeks ante-dating of seniority w.e.f. 20 January 2014. 2. Persons who have been appointed between 2014 and 2018 who would be affected have not been made parties. 3. To our mind, a petition without impleading parties in such case would not lie. Those persons whose seniority, vis-à-vis the petitioner(s) would be affected, have to be made parties before the Court adjudicates on the lis, is settled by a wide swathe of authorities, including State of Rajasthan v Ucchab Lal Chhanwal1, Vijay 1 (2014) 1 SCC 144 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 17100/2025 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:14.11.2025 13:48:54 Kumar Kaul v Union of India2, Indu Shekhar Singh v State of U.P.3, J.S. Yadav v State of U.P4 and Padam Singh Jhina v Union of India5. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to reinstitute the petition after impleading necessary parties. 5. We direct the respondents to inform the petitioner, within a week from today, about persons who may have been promoted as Constable (GD) between 2014 and 2018 and who would be affected by the reliefs sought in this petition so as to enable the petitioner to implead the said persons if so advised, were the petitioner to institute a fresh writ petition. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA