IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.13 of 2006 CHANDAN YADAV, Son of Sri Gopal Yadav,Resident of Village Megha Panchayat, PO Koilathan, PS Keoti, District Darbhanga …Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Air Chief Marshal, Indian Air Force, New Delhi 2. Air Chief Marshal, Indian Air Force, New Delhi 3. Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Air Command, Indian Air Force, Bomrauli, Allahabad (U.P.) 4. Presiding Officer, Indian Air Force, Central Air Command, Bomrauli, Allahabad (U.P.) 5. Wing Commander, Air Force Station, Darbhanga (Bihar) 6. Shiv Narayan Mandal, S/o Baijnath Mandal, resident of Vill. Baghauni, PO Baghauni, PS Baheri, District Darbhanga, at present posted as a Watchman, Air Force Station, Darbhanga ….. Respondents -Respondents ----------- 10- 14.12.2009 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar for the appellant, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. S N Pathak for respondent nos. 1 to 5. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.10073 of 2004 (Chandan Yadav vs. The Union of India and Ors.), and is aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2005, whereby his writ petition was dismissed and the order of the authorities declaring the writ petitioner over-age in terms of the advertisement read with the corrigendum has been upheld. We shall go by the description occurring in the present appeal. 2. A brief statement of facts for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 had issued an advertisement for appointment to various posts in the Indian Air Force including the one in question, namely, Watchman, in the 2 office of the Station Commander, Air Force, Darbhanga, which had appeared in the Employment News dated 6-12th December 2003 (Annexure 1). According to the same, the age limit of the candidate was 18 to 25 years as on 23.10.2002. This was followed by a corrigendum which stated that the age limit was to be determined as on 10.2.2004. The appellant and respondent no.6 were amongst the applicants. The appellant was interviewed on 11.2.2004. The Board of Officers submitted its recommendation dated 12.2.2004, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The BOO recommends that the following candidates are recommended as Main and Standby for selection of Group D Watchman subject to character verification by Police and Medical fitness from Government Medical Officer:- (a) CHANDAN YADAV - Main (b) SHIV NARAYAN MANDAL - Standby” The petitioner was not appointed and instead appointment letter was issued to respondent no.6 leading to the writ petition which has been dismissed. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the appellant as well as respondent no.6 herein were finally recommended for appointment in the manner indicated hereinabove. It is evident that the appellant was the first in the merit list, describing as main selected candidate, and respondent no.6 herein was the second in the merit list and was 3 described as standby candidate, notwithstanding which the appellant was not appointed. It appears to us on a perusal of the order of the learned single Judge that appointment letter was not issued to the appellant because he was over-age by 33 days as on 10.2.2004 as a result of which respondent no.6 was appointed. The reason assigned in the impugned action cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition suffers from a vital defect which has been overlooked by the learned single Judge. It appears that respondent no.6 herein was not impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceeding. It is, therefore, not possible to grant any relief to the appellant though he has been impleaded in the appeal. Impleading respondent no.6 for the first time in the appeal and his exclusion in the writ petition cannot cure the defect. We entirely agree with the learned single Judge. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl