Dismissed¶4

K .Vivek Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Seniority – ante-dating sought from 2018 to 20 January 2014

Delhi HC12 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/17100/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority ante-dating; non-joinder of necessary parties; impleadment of affected employees; petition without affected parties would not lie; W.P.(C) 17100/2025; High Court of Delhi; C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla JJ.; oral order dated 12.11.2025; dismissal with liberty to reinstitute; Constable (GD) promotions 2014–2018; Union of India.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to reinstitute after impleading necessary parties; respondents directed to disclose, within a week, persons promoted as Constable (GD) between 2014 and 2018 who may be affected. ¶4

K .Vivek Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17100/2025

¶4

K .VIVEK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, SPC with Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP and Mr. Shaunak Dutta, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶8

¶9

ORDER (ORAL) 12.11.2025

¶10

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶11

1. The petitioner, who has been presently granted seniority w.e.f. 2018, seeks ante-dating of seniority w.e.f. 20 January 2014.

¶12

2. Persons who have been appointed between 2014 and 2018 who would be affected have not been made parties.

¶13

3. To our mind, a petition without impleading parties in such case would not lie. Those persons whose seniority, vis-à-vis the petitioner(s) would be affected, have to be made parties before the Court adjudicates on the lis , is settled by a wide swathe of authorities, including State of Rajasthan v Ucchab Lal Chhanwal¹ , Vijay

¶14

1 (2014) 1 SCC 144 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 17100/2025 Signing Da te:1 4.11.2025 13:48:54

¶15

W.P.(C) 17100/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Kumar Kaul v Union of India² , Indu Shekhar Singh v State of U.P.³ , J.S. Yadav v State of U.P⁴ and Padam Singh Jhina v Union of India⁵ .

¶18

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to reinstitute the petition after impleading necessary parties.

¶19

5. We direct the respondents to inform the petitioner, within a week from today, about persons who may have been promoted as Constable (GD) between 2014 and 2018 and who would be affected by the reliefs sought in this petition so as to enable the petitioner to implead the said persons if so advised, were the petitioner to institute a fresh writ petition.

¶20

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶21

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶22

NOVEMBER 12, 2025 dsn

¶23