Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure 5 to writ petition).
The challenge in present writ petition is regarding appointment which was to be made by Principal of the institution in accordance with law.
It appears that on certain vacancies of Class IV employee in the institution, the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 10.4.2006 granted permission to make appointments. Petitioner who alleged himself to be a candidate has stated in Para 20 of writ petition has filed the present writ petition and by making various allegations, obtain an interim order on 16.5.2006. The said order is being quoted below:-
"The petitioner is a prospective candidate and has questioned the wisdom of the Committee of Management in filling up five vacant seats from the Scheduled Caste category for which promotion has also been granted by the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 10.4.2006. As per Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is a chart issued by the principal, it transpires that five persons belonging to the O.B.C. and two persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste category are already working i.e., seven persons belonging to the reserved category are already working on a total strength of 15 posts and, therefore, the question of filling the remaining five seats would be violation of the Reservation Act, 1994.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 may file counter affidavit within six weeks.
Issue notice to the respondent no.4 by Registered Post A/D. Steps to be taken within one week. List after six weeks on the date fixed in the summon, by which time the said respondent may file counter affidavit.
In view of the aforesaid the selection process may go on, but no appointment shall be made by the respondent no.4 till further orders of the Court."
A counter affidavit was filed by State as well as by private respondents and copy of the same was served on 7.7.2006 but no rejoinder affidavit has yet been filed rebutting the allegations made in the counter affidavit.
Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition being not an applicant or one of the candidate to be considered for the purposes for the post for which permission has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the Principal of the institution. Further petitioner has not impleaded the selected persons, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone. Further submission has been made that letter dated 16.2.2004 alleged to be issued by Principal of the institution, is a forged letter which is apparent from the averment made in para 20 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4. The averment made in para 20 of the counter affidavit is quoted below:-
"20. That the contents of paragraph 16 and 17 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply it is submitted that deponent never sought permission from the office of the respondent no.4 to give appointment in the OBC category as 6 posts were vacant in the said institution and for the purpose he wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 on 30.1.2006 but the petitioner annexed a forged letter dated 16.2.2004 which was never written by the deponent and same can also be verified through the earlier letter dated 30.1.2006 which is annexed as Annexure 1 to this counter affidavit and it is also further submitted that a letter dated 10.4.2006 is totally fabricated as on the same day this letter was not issued from the office of the respondent No.2 in fact on the same day a letter dated 10.4.2006 was issued from the office of the respondent no.2 which is totally contradictory to the alleged letter dated 10.4.2006 which has been filed by petitioner in the present writ petition. The type copy of the letter dated 10.4.2006, which was written by the respondent no.2 addressing to the respondent no.4 is being appended herewith and marked as Annexure C.A.-3 to this Counter Affidavit."
In view of aforesaid fact, learned counsel for respondents submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner states that in para 20 an averment has been made that he has filed a representation to respondent no.2 and respondent No.2 has informed that all five posts in Class IV category is a backward class and no applications will be entertained. Petitioner has not brought on record any document to show therein that he is one of the candidate to be considered for appointment. Unless and until it is shown that petitioner is one of the candidate to be appointed, he cannot have any grievance regarding the fact whether the criteria of reservation has been complied with or not. When respondent has came with a clear case specifically stating therein that Annexure 4 to writ petition is a forged letter and has never been issued by the Principal of the Institution, there is no rebuttal by petitioner up-till-date regarding the aforesaid fact.
In view of aforesaid fact, in my opinion, it is a totally misconceived petition by a person who cannot maintain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.
Interim order passed by the Court is hereby discharged.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010 SKD