Sunil Kumar vs The State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 673 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3479 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Devi Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashim Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no.4 to take necessary legal action on the complaint/application of the petitioner in pursuant to the illegal appointment of the respondent no.7 on the post of Saphaikarmi and working at present under the respondents authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being resident of village concerned in which respondent no.7 has been appointed, has moved a complaint with respect to illegal appointment of respondent no.7 on the post of Saphaikarmi on the basis of forged documents. He further submits that cognizance has been taken on the aforesaid complaint but no inquiry has been conducted with respect to the illegal appointment.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition by contending that the petitioner has no right or locus to file the present writ petition, as he is not aggrieved person. Even otherwise, the complaint so made is not accompanied by the affidavit. In support of said plea, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008 (2) UPLBEC 1256. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, he also submit that the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Public Interest Litigation.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as the legal proposition relied upon by them herein above.

For ready reference, paragraph-14 of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Amin Khan (Supra) reads as follows:

"14.In case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as witness in the inquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the list. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the appeal, and the applicant for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected."

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.4.2022

Jitendra/-