Ramesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 20438 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51115
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6589 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Gram Vikas,Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.5.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to private respondent No.6 is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction from this Court to the respondents to consider and decide his representation with regard to respondent No.6, who is working on the post of Rojgar Sewak in Village Panchayat Bari, Block and Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite parties to restrain the functioning of respondent No.6 as Rojgar Sewak.

4. Learned Standing counsel, at the outset, has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has no concern with the issues raised before this Court and that he is a stranger to the dispute and, hence, he is not aggrieved person and consequently writ petition on his behest cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner has sought interference in the working of respondent No.6 on the post of Rojgar Sewak and accordingly as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, 1998 (7) SCC 273 no public interest petition is maintainable in such matters.

5. This Court has considered arguments of the parties.

6. It is noticed that there were several allegations regarding working of respondent No.6 as Rojgar Sewak and complaints have also been taken cognizance of by the Gaon Sabha which has passed resolutions against his working. Government order dated 23.11.2007 also provides that competent authority in respect of Rojgar Sewak will be Gram Panchayat. This Court finds force in the objections raised by learned Standing counsel that neither is the petitioner aggrieved by the controversy raised in the present petition against respondent No.6 nor is the said public interest petition maintainable in a service matter as per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra). In light of the above, the present writ petition would not be maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

7. However, it is open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the authority as prescribed in the Government Order dated 23.11.2007.

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 (Alok Mathur J.)

RKM.