Selection challenge fails for non-joinder of the selected candidate as a necessary party.

The petitioner applied for the post of Administrator at the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies pursuant to Advertisement No. ANS/DIR/24/2024 dated 10 June 2024.

She was shortlisted and, after repeated postponements, appeared in an online interview conducted on 14 June 2025.

The Board of Control subsequently approved a panel of six candidates, which did not include the petitioner.

Through an RTI response dated 11 February 2026, she learned that Vikrant Kumar, one of the shortlisted candidates, had joined as Administrator.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable because Vikrant Kumar, whose selection and joining could be affected by the proceedings, had not been impleaded.

Although the Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to implead him, her counsel declined to do so.

Whether the writ petition challenging the recruitment and appointment was maintainable in the absence of Vikrant Kumar, the selected candidate who had already joined as Administrator, being impleaded as a party?

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party after the petitioner declined the Court’s opportunity to implead the selected candidate?

The Court applied the established procedural principle that a person whose legal rights, selection, appointment, or continuance in office may be directly affected by the relief sought is a necessary party to the proceedings.

An order concerning the validity of a selection or appointment should not ordinarily be passed behind the back of the affected appointee.

The Court also applied the principle that refusal to implead such a necessary party, despite an opportunity granted by the Court, justifies dismissal of the proceedings for non-joinder.

The petitioner relied on principles of transparency under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and precedents concerning disclosure of examination marks, adherence to advertised selection procedures, and the prohibition against changing the rules of the game; however, those merits were not adjudicated because the petition failed on the preliminary ground of non-joinder.

The petitioner sought reliefs that could invalidate or materially affect the selection and appointment of Vikrant Kumar, who had already joined the post of Administrator.

Since the petitioner admittedly acquired knowledge of his appointment through the RTI response dated 11 February 2026, the Court held that he was a necessary party to the writ proceedings.

The Court offered the petitioner an opportunity to implead him, but she expressly declined.

In these circumstances, any adjudication of the petitioner’s prayers in his absence could prejudice his interests and affect his selection and joining without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

The Court therefore declined to examine the allegations regarding the recruitment process, RTI disclosure, composition of the committees, or alleged procedural irregularities.

As the petitioner refused to implead him despite being granted an opportunity to do so, the writ petition was dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party.

No finding was recorded on the merits of the recruitment process or the petitioner’s RTI and transparency-related claims.