This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-manager claiming illegality in the appointment of two assistant clerks. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he failed to prove he was a life member or that his rights were infringed, dismissing the petition for being misconceived.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16963 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U P and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner alleging himself to be an Ex-Manager of the institution namely Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Doghat, Baghpat (hereinafter referred to as "institution") and life member of the general body of the society.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut by which approval to the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has been granted by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been appointed as Assistant Clerk in the institution. It is alleged by the petitioner that the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is illegal inasmuch as the Committee of Management of the institution without obtaining prior permission of the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj as provided under Regulation 101 of the Chapter 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 invited application for making selection on the said vacancies in the daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" on 22.9.2018. The District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat-respondent No. 4 by the order dated 28.9.2018 cancelled the advertisement in respect of the aforesaid vacancies on the ground that the same have not been advertised after following the due procedure. It is further stated that the power to grant approval to the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is vested with the respondent No. 4, but the approval was granted by the respondent No. 3-Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut who is not competent to grant approval to the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition that the representative of respondent No. 4 did not participate in the selection proceedings. It is also alleged that respondent No. 6 is son of one Dharmveer Taliyan, Administrative Officer working in the office of Deputy Director of Meerut and respondent No. 7 Sukhmindar Singh Sirohi is the son of one Jigendra Singh Sirohi who is working as Head Clerk in the office of respondent No. 3.
On the basis of aforesaid pleading, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is per-se illegal as it has been done without following due procedure of law. He submits that the appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was managed by fathers of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who were working in the office of Deputy Director of Education and Joint
Director of Education. He further submits that the petitioner being the life member of the society has right to prefer the writ petition in view of the judgment of Janta Inter College & Another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2017 (6) AWC 5558.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner is alleging himself to be life member of the society, but there is no material on record to indicate that he is life member of the society. He further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition inasmuch no rights of the petitioner has been violated by the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. He further contended that the writ petition lacks material facts and particulars which could demonstrate that the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is illegal and not in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioner has not enclosed the order dated 22.12.2018 of Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut approving the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and, therefore, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how the order dated 22.12.2018 is illegal in the absence of said order on record. Thus, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As per own case of the petitioner, he is Ex Deputy Manager of the Committee of Management and he is a life member of the society. Petitioner has not filed any document to establish that he is a life member of the society. Further it is settled law that in service jurisprudence, a writ petition on behalf of a person who has no claim to the post in question is not maintainable. It would be appropriate to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . Relevant paragraph Nos. 9, 15 and 23 of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
"Person aggrieved :
9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of
such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of Orrisa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758).
23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locusstandi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , allowed the appeal of the appellant-Dr. Duryodhan Sahu whose appointment was challenged and set aside in public interest litigation at the instance of a stranger on the ground that he was not aggrieved person at all. Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment are extracted herein below:-
"18. The constitution of Administrative Tribunal was necessitated because of large pendency of cases relating to service matters in various courts in the country. It was expected that the setting up of Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively in service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the Courts but also provide to the persons covered by the Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances. The basic idea as evident from the various provisions of the Act is that the Tribunal should quickly redress the grievances in relation to service matters. The definition of 'service matters' found in Section 3 (q) shows that in relation to a person the expression means all service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The significance of the word 'his' cannot be ignored. Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19 . The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Section 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated."
Since the petitioner is stranger and none of the rights of the petitioner is prejudiced by the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Assistant Clerk, in the opinion of the Court the writ petition on behalf of petitioner is misconceived and not maintainable.
Sofar the judgment of this Court in the case of Janta Inter College (supra) relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same was rendered in a different factual context wherein there was a dispute of Committee of Management which had travelled to this Court, and during the pendency of dispute, the Committee of Management proceeded to hold disciplinary inquiry against the Principal of the institution. In the said factual backdrop, this Court held that the Committee of Management had locus to file writ petition. Thus the judgment of this Court in the case of Janta Inter College (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.
In the case in hand, the writ petition lacks material facts and particulars. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut, but the said order has not been brought on record. In the absence of said order, the question as to whether approval to the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was granted as per law cannot be determined.
It is worth mentioning that though a bald allegation has been made that the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been manipulated by their fathers as they are working in the office of Deputy Director of Education and Joint Director of Education, but the said pleading is not supported by any material on record to establish the veracity of the averments made by the petitioner in this regard. Thus for this reason also, the writ petition is misconceived.
Consequently, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.11.2019 Jaswant/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has the necessary locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the appointment of other candidates who are not his own.
Whether the petitioner has established that his rights as a life member of the society were prejudiced by the appointments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Janta Inter College & Another Vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶23
Janta Inter College & Another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2017 (6) AWC 5558
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶13
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 · Who else cites this
State of Orrisa v. Madan Gopal RungtaRelied on¶17
State of Orrisa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 · Who else cites this
Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P.Relied on¶17
Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 · Who else cites this
Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West BengalRelied on¶17
Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶17
Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 · Who else cites this
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. SekarRelied on¶17
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 · Who else cites this
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar MishraRelied on¶19
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114 · Who else cites this
Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶19
Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540 · Who else cites this
Neetu v. State of PunjabRelied on¶19
Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758 · Who else cites this
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar MishraRelied on¶20
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Pal Singh
State of U P
6 others
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
