WP(C) 5623/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the notification dated 26 September 2007 issued by Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointing 54 (f ifty four) persons to the post of junior inspector/auditor of cooperative societ ies, basically on three grounds: firstly, though pursuant to the advertisement d ated 12 August 2005 30(thirty) vacancies were notified, excess appointments were made; secondly, such appointments were made without publishing any select list; and thirdly, though in the advertisement dated 12 August 2005 it was specifical ly mentioned that reservation policy would apply, not a single candidate from th e Scheduled Caste community has been appointed, though the petitioner No.1 belon gs to that community and entitled to reservation. Heard Mr AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Mr BJ Ghosh, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since 30 vacancies were notified vide advertisement dated 12 August 2005, the authority cannot appoint beyond that number. It is also submitted that before making any appointment to t he posts for which the selection was conducted, the publication of select list i s a must, which has not been done. Learned counsel further submits that though t he reservation policy is applicable, not a single Scheduled Caste candidate has been appointed though the petitioner No.1 belongs to that community. Learned cou nsel also submits that before issuing the corrigendum dated 29 August 2005 a dec ision was taken by the Government to fill up 55(fifty five) of such posts. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, learned State counsel, on the basis of the relevant record, has submitted that vide advertisement date d 12 August 2005 though initially 30(thirty) vacancies were notified, by issuing the corrigendum dated 29 August 2005 it was informed that the vacancies might b e beyond thirty and therefore, according to learned State counsel, the first gro und on which the appointment has been challenged is nonest. It has further been submitted that select list was published by giving due regard to the reservation policy. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners having chall enged the appointments of 54 persons, the present writ petition is not maintaina ble in the absence of the appointed persons. It appears that the case was heard in part on 9 November 2010, when the question of maintainability of the writ petition in absence of the selected pers ons was also raised. The case was thereafter taken up for hearing on 11 November 2010, when the case was directed to be posted for hearing today. The petitioners though have challenged the order of appointment dated 26 September 2007 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointing 54 p ersons to the post of junior inspector/auditor of cooperative societies, not a s ingle person has been arrayed as party-respondent though their names and address es are clearly reflected in impugned order dated 26 September 2007. Though such plea of maintainability of writ petition was raised on 9 November 2010, the peti tioners have not taken any steps to array such persons. In the event the petitio n is allowed, as prayed for by the petitioners, the rights of those 54(fifty fou r) persons would naturally be affected, in whose absence the writ petition canno t be adjudicated upon, they being necessary parties. Since the persons selected and appointed have not been arrayed as party- respondents in present petition, it is not maintainable and hence dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.