' The petitioner, a teacher in the Lahore Municipal Corporation Primary School, was dismissed from service, vide order dated 1st October, 1965 and the appeal taken against the said order of dismissal also failed vide order dated 8th August, 1966 passed by the then Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore. These orders were assailed by the petitioner by filing a constitution petition (W. P.
438/67) and the same was accepted by this Court vide order dated 22nd January, 1970 with the direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Commissioner shall be deemed to be pending and shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with law. In pursuance to the said direction appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore and he vide order dated 25th August, 1970 allowed the appeal and directed re-instatement in service of the petitioner. It was further directed by him that the period of absence since the date of dismissal shall be considered as leave of whatsoever category is due. The petitioner felt aggrieved of the said direction and assailed the same by filing the present constitution petition against the Additional Commissioner, Revenue. He did not implead the Lahore Municipal Corporation as respondent to this petition. In these circumstances the question arises whether any relief can be claimed by the petitioner in the absence of the Lahore Municipal Corporation. On my query that in the absence of Lahore Municipal Corporation the petition is not competently constituted, learned counsel conceded that the Lahore Municipal Corporation is a necessary party to the present proceedings but he added that cause should not be allowed to fail on account of non-joinder of a necessary party. He further orally requested that the petitioner be permitted to implead the Lahore Municipal Corporation as respondent.
2. I am afraid at this late stage the request to implead the necessary party, i. e. The Lahore Municipal Corporation, cannot be granted. N justification has been shown for not impleading the Municipal Corporation for all these years. It is not denied that valuable right has accrued to the Lahore Municipal Corporation and the right so accruing cannot be allowed to be defeated. It is pertinent to note that the order containing the impugned, direction was passed on 25th August, 1970 and the petition was filed on 16th February, 1972, i,e, after a period of almost two years. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the petition for two years taken in approaching this Court. The petition was filed thus suffered from laches and inordinate delay. In the petition so filed with that much delay, the Lahore Municipal Corporation which is admittedly a necessary party was not impleaded. Again in the 11 years that the petition remained pending in this Court, no effort was made to have the necessary party impleaded. It is well established that in the absence of necessary party and in an incompetent petition relief cannot be granted. Almost 13 years have elapsed since passing of the impugned direction and it is too late now to seek permission to implead a necessary party for claiming invalidation of the impugned direction. This petition being incompetently constituted merits to be dismissed. Order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.