Dismissed¶65

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde v. Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WP/84515/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

locus standi; stranger to proceedings; maintainability of writ petition; PIL in service matters not permissible; Article 227; certiorari; mandamus; regularisation of lecturer's appointment; Backlog Assistant Professor in History; Basaveshwar Arts College, Bagalkot; Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan (2013) 4 SCC 465; legal injury; meddlesome bystander; petition dismissed without costs; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; M. Nagaprasanna J; December 2025.

What did the court decide?

A stranger to the proceedings who is neither a participant in the selection process nor a contestant to the regularisation of the appointee has no locus standi; a writ petition challenging the appointment/regularisation of another is not maintainable, and this petition is therefore dismissed. ¶65

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde Vs Siddanna S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶65

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the petitioner, a stranger to the proceedings who is neither in employment nor was a contestant for the appointment or regularisation of respondent No.1, has locus standi to challenge the regularisation. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

¶65

Key takeaways

The petition ought to have been dismissed with exemplary costs, but the Court withheld costs because the petition had remained pending for a long time.obiter¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Dr. Manik Shinde, a third party who is neither an employee of respondent No.2 college nor a contestant for the post, seeking (a) certiorari to quash Order No.ED:72:UPC:2012 dated 22.05.2012 passed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.1 (regularisation/continuance of his appointment as Lecturer, Department of History, Basaveshwar Arts College, Bagalkot), and (b) mandamus to recruit the petitioner as Backlog Assistant Professor (History) vide notification dated 11/12/2012. Held, dismissing the petition: the petitioner is a stranger to the proceedings, neither a participant in the selection process nor a contestant to the regularisation, and a person without locus standi who has suffered no legal injury cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the appointment of another - relying on Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 (paras 9-17 quoted). The Court observed that the petition ought to have been dismissed with exemplary costs but abstained from imposing costs owing to its long pendency. The merits, including the plea that no reservation policy was followed, were left unadjudicated.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 84515 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. MANIK S/O. MANOHAR SHINDE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE R/O. KUD QUARTERS, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI. SIDDANNA S/O. NINGAPPA RAMAPURA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O. DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, BASAVESHWAR ARTS COLLEGE, BAGALKOT.

¶11

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

¶13

SHRI. BASAVESHWAR ARTS COLLEGE, BAGALKOT, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL, VEERAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA MORABAD AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O. STAFF QUARTERS, BASAVESHWAR COLLEGE, BAGALKOT.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DHARWAD REGION, DHARWAD.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3 TO R6)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

¶24

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO:

¶25

A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.ED:72:UPC:2012 DATED 22.05.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-K.

¶26

B) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BE ISSUED TO RECRUIT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF BACKLOG ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN HISTORY IN RESPONDENT NO.2 COLLEGE VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 11/12/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-A and etc.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶28

IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶31

The petitioner seeks the following prayer:

¶32

A) A writ of certiorari to quash the order No.ED:72:UPC:2012 dated 22.05.2012 passed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.1 as per Annexure-K.

¶33

B) A writ of Mandamus be issued to recruit the petitioner to the post of Backlog Assistant Professor in History in respondent No.2 college vide notification dated 11/12/2012 as per Annexure-A and etc.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shrikant T. Patil, appearing for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.J.S.Shetty, appearing for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP-Smt.Girija Hiremath, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶37

The petitioner is said to be a stranger to the proceedings, who calls in question the regularisation or continuance of appointment of the first respondent in the second respondent institution. It is the case of the petitioner that the regularisation of the first respondent has happened contrary to law, for the reason that no reservation policy was followed or otherwise. The petitioner is neither in employment nor was a contestant against the first respondent for appointment or regularisation as the case would be.

¶38

The State Government has preferred its detailed statement of objections. The Learned HCGP taking this court through the statement of objections would seek to demonstrate that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the second respondent institution and has projected the subject petition which is in the nature of a public interest petition. Therefore, the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petitioner has no locus to challenge the regularisation of the first respondent.

¶43

There is no warrant to keep the petition pending for the satisfaction of the petitioner that the petition is pending till today. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ , wherein the Apex Court has held that a person who has no locus cannot maintain a writ petition to challenge the appointment of others. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

¶44

“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 . In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court . The legal right

¶45

1 (2013) 4 SCC 465

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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.

¶49

10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.

¶50

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289] , a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.

¶51

12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.[(2011) 7 SCC 616] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25)

¶52

“ 25. … The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.”

¶53

13. This Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas corpus petition, has explained that the expression “next friend” means a person who is not a total stranger. Such a petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete stranger to the person who is in alleged illegal custody.

¶54

14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it.

¶58

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.

¶59

16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC 33], this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under : (SCC p. 54, para 38)

¶60

“ 38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095 WP No. 84515 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hypertechnical grounds. … In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi.”

¶64

(emphasis added) 17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.”

¶65

In the light of afore quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the admitted fact that the petitioner is neither a participant in the selection process nor a contestant to the regularisation of the first respondent, the petition cannot be maintain. The petition ought to have been dismissed with exemplary costs, but this Court is holding its hands for the reason that it is pending for so long. The petition stands dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶67

RHR/-CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde v. Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde v. Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Gopal Bilagikar S/O Sidleppa, Vs Union Bank of India

Shri Siddanagowda Basanagowda Lakkanagowdara S/O Basanagowda Lakkanagowdara Vs the Commissioner and Appellate Authority

Venkatesh S/O Hanumanth Hudedamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Lalappa L Pammar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Dundappa S/O Satappa Pattanashetty Vs the State of Karnataka