The single-judge High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of a writ petition. The petitioner sought relief against a private NGO under a non-statutory scheme. The Court held that mandamus is not available against private organizations or for enforcing temporary appointment rights.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 192 of 2015
P.C.: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale)
This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 06.02.2015, passed in W.P.No.2139 of 2015. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for seeking direction to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 to allow him to work as Aarogyamithra in Balayapalli PHC, SPSR Nellore District. It appears that the appellant was appointed vide letter, dated 17.07.2012 on outsourcing basis for a salary of Rs.4,576/- including EPF and ESI by respondent No.4, which is the nonGovernment organization. The letter of appointment itself made it clear that his appointment was purely on temporary basis and would be terminated at any time without giving any notice or assigning any reason therefor. In this backdrop, learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing as follows:
The Aarogya Seva Scheme is a non-statutory scheme. It has been introduced by the State Government with a view to provide certain financial assistance to the deserving families so as to secure the needy medical assistance by them. Therefore, for the purpose of effective supervision of this beneficial scheme, a trust is obviously created. A writ of mandamus, as is too well-known, can be issued for enforcing any right, either statutory or fundamental, or for forbearing any public authority from acting contrary to law or exceeding the limits of jurisdiction. If the scheme itself is a non-statutory scheme and the 4th respondent is a private non-governmental organization, there is no way that a writ of mandamus as prayed for can be issued against the same.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the Scheme was a Government Scheme, learned Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition. We do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant in view of the admitted fact that respondent No.4 is the NGO and the appellant’s services were engaged by them purely on temporary basis under the non-statutory scheme. In any case, the letter of appointment did not create any legal right in the appellant so as to seek writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B.BHOSALE,J
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J
Dt:09.04.2015
kdl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued against a non-governmental trust against private appointees under a non-statutory scheme.
Whether the appellant's temporary appointment agreement created a legal right enforceable by writ of mandamus.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
Dilip B.Bhosale
A.Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
