Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 86 of 2019 Appellant :- Vineeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jetendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Komal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the respondent no.4 with the Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.12.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant on query being made, as to how she is aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no.4 is unable to answer the same except for stating that she is maternal grant- daughter of the complainant. The complainant is not a person aggrieved by any appointment. Her job is over, once she points the irregularity or illegality in the appointment and at best can be witness in any enquiry. However, she would not be recognized as a person aggrieved or be made a party to such enquiry or litigation.
In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner-appellant was not having even any locus to maintain the writ petition as none of the rights were infringed by the appointment of the respondent no.4. The appeal is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Ashutosh Pandey