1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2007 Ashish S.Chitre and Ors. ... Petitioners Versus MumbaiMahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.Z. Choudhary for the Petitioners. Mr. Prakash S. Devdas for R. No. 1. Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr.Counsel with Mrs.. A.K. Savla for R. No. 2. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . This is a petition by the Petitioners who had moved an application before the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 461 of 2005. That complaint was filed by the Union against the Municipal Corporation and others seeking some reliefs. An order came to be passed by which the Municipal Corporation was directed to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Security Officers as per circular dated 8.12.2003 from the candidates who have passed the physical test as well as who have been interviewed on 4.4.2006. It was the case of these applicants 2 that though they have failed in the physical test earlier they had been recalled and the effect of the order of the court was directly affecting their rights as there is specific direction not to consider the candidates who had earlier failed in the physical test. The petitioners herein are the candidates who had failed in the physical test. . An application for intervention came to be rejected by order impugned dated 18.1.2007. In our opinion, considering that the order directly affects the right, if any, of the Petitioners herein, they were necessary parties in the complaint and as such their application for intervention ought to have been allowed. . Considering the above, the impugned order dated 18.1.2007 is set aside. The application for intervention Exh. UA-3 is allowed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to amend the complaint and thereafter to proceed according to law. . We make it clear that we have not decided any rights of the parties. We are only considering the issue in the context that the Petitioners being affected parties and have a right of hearing. 3 (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)