IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9960 of 2011 Krishna Deo Prasad son of Sri Deonandan Prasad, resident of village Karai Parsurai, PS Karai Parsurai, District Nalanda, at present posted as Junior Engineer, P. Way Thana Bihpur (T.H.B) Sonpur Division, E.C.R Hajipur District Vaishali ......... .....Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, District Vaishali ( Bihar) 2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, District Vaishali ( Bihar) 3. The General Manager (Vigilance), East Central Railway, District Vaishali ( Bihar) 4. The Principal Chief Engineer, East Central Railway, District Vaishali ( Bihar) 5. Shambhu Kumar son of Sri K. N. Prasad, Chief Vigilance Inspector (Engineering), East Central Railway Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar) ........ .....Respondents ----------- 2 28-06-2011 Heard Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharath Prasad, learned counsel for the railway. The petitioner was not a party to the proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 777/2010. He has preferred this writ petition on the ground that the applicant before the Tribunal ought to have made the petitioner a party and the Tribunal should have decided the matter after hearing the petitioner because he is adversely affected by the impugned order dated 23-11-2010. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is an interim order and the Tribunal has fixed a date for completion of pleadings. The office has objected to the maintainability 2 of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal. It has rightly been submitted that even a person who was not a party before the Tribunal may maintain the writ petition if the order of the Tribunal affects him adversely. However, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice will be fully protected if petitioner is granted liberty to move before the Tribunal for being impleaded as a respondent and he may also seek review of the impugned order if he can show to the Tribunal that he is adversely affected by the order and was required to be heard before passing of the order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. It is expected that if the petitioner files an application by way of review and for impleadment, the same should be considered expeditiously on its own merits. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (V. Nath, J.)