- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) ACCORDING to the appellants themselves, the respondent swrit petitioners preferred the writ petition with the averment that the State of Jharkhand has taken the decision for granting them promotion to the post of Joint Secretary Cadre and after approval/recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the same has been approved by His Excellency, Governor of Jharkhand but even thereafter no notification has been issued and the State is sitting tight over the matter and therefore the respondents writ petitioners sought direction of this Court against the State that State should publish the notification which is pending with it since August, 2010. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the recommendation for promotion of the writ petitioners itself was wrong and they cannot be given promotion and if any promotion is given to them, then that will certainly adversely affect the appellants whose application for being impleaded as party in the writ petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. It is clear from the facts mentioned above itself that the writ petitioners are seeking direction against the State for publication of the notification in consonance with the decision already taken and according to the appellants, they, by becoming party in the writ petition, want to state that the decision taken by the State is wrong or illegal meaning thereby a subject which is not in dispute in the writ petition of the petitioners will crop up if the appellants are impleaded as party in the writ petition and that will change the nature of the litigation itself because the appellants, after becoming party, will seek to challenge the decision of the State taken with respect to the promotion of the writ petitioners. In view of the above reasons, the appellants were rightly denied the opportunity to become party in the writ petition.;