- (1.)We have heard Shri Yatin N. Oza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tushar Sheth, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, learned Government Pleader for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri K.B.Pujara, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 60.
(2.)This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred assailing the correctness of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.5182 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge fixed 11.03.2020 as next date and further requiring the respondent authority to consider objections of the petitioners and take a decision by the said date and till such decision is taken, the learned Single Judge provided that the provisional list shall not operate. The said order is reproduced below:
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.03.2020. In the meantime, it is open for the respondents to consider the objection of the petitioners and take a decision thereon by the 11.03.2020. Till such a decision is taken, provisional list shall not operate. Direct service, today, is permitted".

(3.)Shri Oza, learned Senior Advocate has raised three grounds before us assailing the correctness of the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. Firstly, that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is non? speaking order. Secondly that the petition suffers from the vice of non?joinder of necessary parties, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have stayed his hands off and at the first instance, the petitioners therein were required to implead the affected parties as party respondents in the writ petition and till such time the affected parties were impleaded and adequate opportunity given, no interim order ought to have been passed. Thirdly that in matters of seniority, interim order ought not to have been passed and it is only at the stage of final disposal, the decision could have been taken about the merit of the seniority list. In support of his submission, Shri Yatin Oza placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11.09.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1480 of 2013 between the Gujarat Public Service Commission through the Secretary viz. Parmar Nilesh Rajendrakumar and 99 others on the proposition that in the absence of necessary parties having been impleaded, the petition itself was liable to be thrown out rather than being entertained and interim order being passed.