The petitioner No.1 is a Sinchai Sangh and alleges that it is a recognized Sangh by the Government of U.P and is looking after the interest of the employees consisting of Supervisors, Sinchpal and Tubewell Operators employed in the Government of U.P. The petitioner No.3 is also a registered Association known as Ministerial Association, Irrigation Department and is looking after the welfare of the employees of Class-III level as well as Supervisors, Sinchpal and Tubewell Operators.
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 14.9.2011 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief by which a decision has been taken to fill up 397 posts of Sinchpal and 60 posts of Sinch Paryavekshak under the Sinchpal Sewa Niyamawali, 1953 and Sinch Paryavekshak Sewa Niyamawali, 1954. The petitioners have also questioned the advertisement dated 24.9.2011 issued by the Irrigation Division, Fatehpur, advertisement dated 24.9.2011 issued by the Irrigation Division, Etawah, advertisement dated 25.9.2011 issued by the Irrigation Division Kanpur and advertisement dated 26.9.2011 issued by the Irrigation Division, Kanpur. The petitioners have further prayed, that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to hold any selection of the post of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak till such time the Sinchpal Sewa Niyamawali and Sinch Paryavekshak Sewa Niyamawali are not framed by the Government of U.P. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the C.B.I. to hold an inquiry against certain officers, who have been named in the writ petition for playing a fraud on the Irrigation Department.
Before the hearing of the writ petition, the officers, who had been arrayed in their personal capacity, were deleted by an order of the Court dated 19.11.2012 and consequently, the petitioners have now confined their relief to the validity of the order dated 14.9.2011, by which the Engineer-in-Chief had taken a decision to fill up various post of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak under the Sinchpal Sewa Niyamawali, 1953 and Sinch Paryavekshak Sewa Niyamawali, 1954 and the consequential advertisement issued pursuant to it.
Writ petition No.64981 of 2011 has also been filed for the quashing of the order dated 14.9.2011, passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and the advertisement issued by various Irrigation Department. The petitioners are candidates who had applied pursuant to the order of the Engineer-in-Chief but, did not qualify.
Similarly Writ Petition Nos.63187 of 2011, 63188 of 2011 and 63223 of 2011 has been filed questioning the advertisement. These writ petitions have been filed by the candidates, who had applied and who were unsuccessful.
Writ Petition No.6904 of 2012 has been filed by certain candidates who were selected pursuant to the advertisement, but, on account of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.60334 of 2011, the respondents have restrained the petitioners from undergoing training pursuant to their appointment on the post of Sinchpal.
Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, Sri Surendra Tiwari and Sri Narendra Mohan for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The only ground urged by the petitioners is, that the order of the Engineer-in-Chief, dated 14.9.2011, was liable to be quashed as the posts in question was being filled under the provisions of Sinchpal Sewa Niyamawali, 1953 and Sinch Paryavekshak Sewa Niyamawali, 1954, which Rules do not exist and that a fraud has being played by the respondents in making arbitrary appointments. The learned counsel, in this regard, further submitted that from the documents annexed in the supplementary affidavit, it would become apparently clear that the respondents have made certain correspondence, which would indicate that the Government was amending the Irrigation Department Patrol Service Rules, 1953 and the Irrigation Department Amin Service Rules, 1954 or was contemplating to frame new Rules with regard to the service conditions of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
On these allegations the writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed staying the order of the Engineer-in-Chief. As a result of the interim order, further proceedings were stopped and wherever appointments have not been made, even though the selection process had been completed, no appointments were made and those who were appointed were not sent for training .
In the light of the averments made in the affidavits and, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds, that the writ petition at the instance of the Union, is not maintainable. The Union has no locus standi to question the selection process. It is settled law that in service matters only the aggrieved person, namely, the candidate can approach the Writ Court for the redressal of his grievance. A registered Trade Union has no locus standi and the reason is not far to see. The petitioner Union has categorically stated in its petition that it is looking after the welfare of its members, namely, Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak and Tubewell Operators already working in the Government Organisation. The petitioner Union cannot espouse the cause of candidates who are not their members. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition viz-a-viz Jhansi Division Jal Sansthan Karmchari Union vs. State of U.P., 2004(2)AWC 1849, Transport and Dock Workers Union and others vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another (2011)2 SCC 575, Delhi Jal Board vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others (2011)8 SCC 568, AIR India Cabin Crew Association and others vs. Union of India and other (2012)1 SCC 619 has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, Writ Petition No.60334 of 2011 is not maintainable and is dismissed.
In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, they are candidates who applied pursuant to the order of the Engineer-in-Chief and the advertisement. These candidates appeared in the interview and, upon finding that they were unsuccessful when their results were declared have approached the Writ Court questioning the selection process and the order of the Engineer-in-Chief. The law is settled.
In Union of India and others vs. S. Vinod Kumar and others, 2007(8) SCC 100, the Supreme Court after considering the earlier decisions on the subject reiterated, that candidates who had taken part in the selection process, knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein, were not entitled to question the same.
In Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Suppl. SCC 285, the Supreme Court held, in uncertain terms, that when candidates appear in the examination without protest and subsequently finds that he was not successful in the examination, cannot turn around and question the selection process by filing a writ petition.
Similarly view was also taken in Sadanand Halo and others vs. Mumtaz Ali Sheikh and others, 2008 (4) SCC 619, Madan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and others, 1995 (3)SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja and others vs. Government of Adndhra Pradesh and others 2007(11)SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttarkahand and others, 2008 (4)SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Barooach vs. State of Assam and others, 2009 (3) SCC 227, K.A.Nagmani vs. Indian Air Lines and others, 2009 (5) SCC 515, Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and others, 2010 (12) SCC 576.
It has come on record that pursuant to the order of the Engineer-in-Chief, various advertisements were issued by various Irrigation Departments pursuant to which applications were invited and the candidates were interviewed and a select list was prepared on the basis of which certain persons were given appointments. These facts are not disputed by the petitioners' Union or by the candidates who have appeared and, therefore, the Court is of the opinion, that in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is not open to the petitioners to question the selection process.
The question raised that Sinchpal Sewa Niyamawali 1953 and Sinch Paryavekshak Sewa Niyamawali, 1954 does not exist needs to be clarified also. No doubt the Engineer-in-Chief in his order dated 14.9.2011 had indicated that the post of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak would be filled up in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. But, subsequently, realizing its mistake, an amendment order dated 9.11.2011 was issued clarifying that the appointments would be made under the Irrigation Department Patrol Service Rules, 1953 and the Irrigation Department Amin Service Rules, 1954. The confusion made by the Engineer-in-Chief, in its order, is not far to see and the reason is, that earlier a Sinchpal used to be called a Patrol and a Sinch Paryavekshak used to be called an Amin. Pursuant to a representation made by the Employees Association, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 14.6.1976 and 20.9.1978 whereby the name of Patrol was changed to Sinchpal and the name of Amin was changed to Sinch Paryavekshak and since then appointment of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak are being made under the Irrigation Department Patrol Service Rules, 1953 and the Irrigation Department Amin Service Rules 1954. Over the years these Patrol Rules and Amin Rules were loosely being called Sinchpal Rules and Sinch Paryavekshak Rules, though formal amendment in the title of the Rules was not made, but, appointments were being made under these Rules. The fact that appointments of Sinchpal and Sinch Paryavekshak was being made under the Patrol Rules of 1953 and Amin Rules of 1954 is not disputed by the Union and consequently, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the fact that the nomenclature of the Rules was wrongly mentioned by the Engineer-in-Chief, which upon realistation of the mistake was rectified by an order dated 9.11.2011.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition Nos.64981 of 2011, 63187 of 2011, 63188 of 2011 and 63233 of 2011, which fails and are dismissed.
Since the writ petition has been dismissed and the interim order has been vacated, the writ petition of the successful candidates, i.e., Writ Petition No.6904 of 2012 is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2011 is quashed and the respondents are directed to proceed and permit the petitioner to complete their training.
Order Date :- 23.11.2012 AKJ (Tarun Agarwala,J.)