Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9107 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2513 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner as prayed for following reliefs :

"I. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Joint Director of Secondary Education (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition)

II. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to implement the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 3 during the pendency of the writ petition."

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection that petitioner has only assailed various orders passed in favour of respondent no. 6, while there is no relief sought by the petitioner for himself and consequently, even if these orders are quashed the petitioner does not stand to be benefited and hence the petitioner is not a person aggrieved and consequently, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed various orders passed by the respondents in favour of respondent no. 6 which according to him are de-horse the statutory provisions and rules framed therein and are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be quashed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Even if submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are correct, still it may not be a ground for entertaining present writ petition unless it is shown that petitioner falls in the category of "person aggrieved". It could not be demonstrated that the impugned order effect the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, as the concern only the private respondent. We have also considered that a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in a service dispute according to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273.

7. It is also noticed that respondent no. 6 had intervened in the dispute raised by the petitioner before this Court as intervener and hence on this ground also it cannot be said that petitioner has raised these issues pro bono as an individual.

8. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that petitioner is not "person aggrieved" and consequently present writ petition would not be maintainable on the behest of the petitioner, and only on the ground of maintainability present writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 28.3.2023

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur, J.)