Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Prasad Sikarwar vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90413-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 943 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Sikarwar
Respondent :- State Of UP And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., A.K. Goyal (A.C.S.C.), Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Petitioner, a previous employee of the respondent no. 3-College, has filed this petition purportedly in public interest in the nature of quo warranto seeking restraint against respondent no. 5 from working as Lecturer in Seth P.C. Bagla P.G. College, Hathras and seeking recovery of salary received by him working as Lecturer without having requisite qualification in the institution.
2. Submissions have been made that the respondent no. 5 was appointed on 15.09.1989, i.e., about 35 years ago, without having the requisite qualification, based on which the present petition has been filed.
3. Petitioner earlier filed Writ- A No. 9676 of 2022, which came to dismissed on 28.07.2022 by passing the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for petitioner, and learned State Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Notices to respondent no.4 stands dispensed with.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to State-respondents to decide petitioner's complaint/representation pertaining to alleged illegal appointment on the post of Lecturer of Political Science in the institution concerned.
Mr. Moti Lal, learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that such a petition at the instance of complainant is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashra reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465.
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court to submit that the petition would be maintainable but in view of hierarchy of Courts, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court having primacy is required to be considered.
It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is complainant in the matter. The averments made in the writ petition do not indicate how the petitioner would be prejudiced or aggrieved by alleged illegal appointment of the respondent particularly since the petition in nature of public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.
Considering the decision in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan(supra), the petition is held to be not maintainable at the instance of petitioner and is dismissed at the admission stage itself."
4. After apparently waiting for about two years, the present writ petition has been filed seeking directions, as noticed hereinbefore. A perusal of the order passed by this Court on earlier occasion clearly reveals that based on the status of the petitioner, the Court observed that petition in the nature of public interest in service matters was not maintainable. Filing of the present petition in the nature of quo warranto and also terming the same as 'Public Interest Litigation' apparently only with a view to seek jurisdiction of the Division Bench cannot be countenanced, as the petition of the present nature even otherwise was maintainable before learned Single Judge.
5. Owing to the very fact that the petitioner had served in the same College, where respondent no. 5 has been serving for last 35 years, filing of the present petition appears to be outcome of the some personal grudges, the petitioner may have qua respondent no. 5 and, therefore, in the above circumstances filing the present writ petition purportedly in public interest is essentially misuse of the said jurisdiction. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024
Sharad/P.Sri.
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
