IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 134 of 2010 (S/B) Ram Avtar Ambedkar ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Date of Judgment: 10.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The seniority Rules have been challenged, on the ground that the same does not incorporate certain provisions, which the State of Uttar Pradesh has incorporated in the seniority Rules, framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is not being contended that what the State of Uttar Pradesh has incorporated in the seniority Rules, is required to be incorporated in seniority Rules to be framed by any State Government including the State of Uttarakhand, by reason of any mandate contained in any law binding on the State of Uttarakhand. 2. That being the situation, the challenge thrown to the seniority Rules framed by this State is of no substance at all. 3. It is contended that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer. It is being contended that since he is a Gazetted Officer, there must be a seniority list, listing seniority of Gazetted Officers and there must also be another seniority list, listing seniority of non-Gazetted Officers. It is contended that the same has not been done; one consolidated list has been prepared containing seniority of both Gazetted and non-Gazetted Officers. Before we can proceed further to go into this question, it is our duty to consider, in the event what the petitioner is contending is correct, who may be affected, and whether he is before us? 2 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are certain non-Gazetted Officers, whose seniority has been shown in the consolidated seniority list, bifurcation whereof is being sought for. In the absence of those persons, who have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition, we cannot proceed with the matter. 5. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to re-approach this Court after making all those persons, who are likely to be affected by reason of bifurcation of the consolidated seniority list, as parties. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 10.03.2011 10.03.2011 Amit