Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17601 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Charlie Prakash,Kamal Krishna Roy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi to pass fresh order after holding an inquiry in respect of selection of the respondent No. 5 (Anirudh Kumar Verma) who has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in primary school, Dharsauna, Block Pindra, District Varanasi.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has stated that the petitioner has made a complaint on 20.9.2017 before the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. that the respondent No.
5 has illegally obtained two degrees in the same academic session 2002-03. It is further stated that the respondent No. 5 concealing this material fact had obtained the appointment as Assistant Teacher, and thus, an inquiry in respect to the appointment of respondent No. 5 needs to be conducted to verify the correct facts.
It appears that suspension order was passed against the respondent No. 5 on 16.7.2017, and one Dharam Raj Singh, Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Further, it appears that the Inquiry Officer did not find substance in the charges levelled against the respondent No. 5, and thereby submitted an inquiry report exonerating the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 was reinstated and had rejoined his services.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry alleged to have been conducted against the petitioner was per-se illegal, inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer did not consider the relevant material on record. He further submits that the appointment of respondent No. 5 is illegal and as such, respondent No. 5 has no authority in law to hold post of Assistant Teacher.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not stated in the writ petition as to in what capacity the petitioner has approached to this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is neither aggrieved by appointment of respondent No. 5 nor any of his rights are prejudice and as such the writ petition on behalf of stranger is not maintainable.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner in the writ petition has not disclosed in what capacity, he has preferred the writ petition. Further, there is no pleadings that the petitioner has suffered any prejudice by appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the said post. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 has held that a person is not aggrieved by appointment has no locus to challenge the appointment.
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 :- 26.11.2019 Jaswant