Third-Party Leave to Appeal Granted Where Writ Petitions Involving Conflicting Promotion Claims Constitute Cross-Suits

The 33 applicants are Field Assistants (FAs) in the Agriculture Department, Manipur.

They previously filed W.P.(C) No. 619 of 2025 challenging the 2022 regularization of Respondents 1–36 as FAs and seeking exclusive promotion quotas for original FAs

While that petition was pending, Respondents 1–36 filed W.P.(C) No. 808 of 2025—disclosing the existence of the applicants' writ in their pleadings—seeking directions for promotion to Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO) posts

A Single Bench allowed W.P.(C) No. 808 of 2025 on 09.02.2026, directing the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) to consider the respondents for promotion within two months

The applicants, who were not parties to the latter writ, filed this miscellaneous case seeking leave to appeal as third parties

1. Whether the applicants, as third parties to W.P.(C) No. 808 of 2025, have sufficient legal interest to be granted leave to appeal the order dated 09.02.2026

Whether the pending challenge to the respondents' initial appointment (regularization) creates a nexus that necessitates hearing the applicants' grievances before the respondents are considered for promotion

The court applied the procedural principle governing "leave to appeal" for non-parties, which requires the applicant to demonstrate they are "personally aggrieved" or that their interests are directly affected by the judgment

It further recognized the principle of avoiding conflicting judicial outcomes in matters "in the nature of a cross suit," where the validity of a "feeder post" appointment directly impacts the subsequent right to promotion

The Court observed that the two writ petitions are essentially "cross suits" because W.P.(C) No. 619 of 2025 challenges the very foundation of the respondents' employment (their regularization as FAs)

If the applicants succeed in the first petition, the respondents’ status as FAs would be "effaced," rendering the promotion order in the second petition moot

The Court noted that the respondents were fully aware of the applicants' pending litigation, having mentioned it in Paragraph 19 of their own writ petition, yet the applicants were not heard before the 09.02.2026 order was passed

Because FAs serve as the feeder post for AAOs, any direction to promote the respondents directly impacts the vacancy and seniority rights of the applicants

Consequently, the Court found the applicants to be "aggrieved persons" entitled to challenge the order.

It held that the Tussle between the two sets of FAs regarding promotion to AAO posts necessitates a joint consideration to prevent legal inconsistency

The Registry was directed to expeditiously process and number the Writ Appeal (Filing No. WA/391/2026) and list it for hearing

The application was allowed with no order as to costs