Kuldeep Singh vs Union Of India And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4414 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Judgment delivered on: 25.07.2012

+       W.P.(C) 4266/2012

KULDEEP SINGH                                                    ... Petitioner


                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                          ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Himanshu Upadhyay
For the Respondent           : Mr R.K.Singh and Mr B.V.Niren.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL


                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order

dated 23.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 191/2012. The petitioner sought to challenge

the appointment of the respondent No.3 ( Professor B.K.Tripathi) to the

post of Joint Director, NCERT on the ground that the said respondent No.3

lacked the requisite experience.

2. At the very inception of the arguments we had asked the learned

counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate as to whether he had the locus

standi to pursue this matter. Accordingly, we had adjourned this matter to

enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to take instructions from the

petitioner with regard to the withdrawal of the writ petition as apparently

the petitioner did not have any locus standi. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has taken instructions and states that the petitioner wants to

pursue this writ petition.

3. In this context we may point out that after hearing the learned

counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned counsel for the respondents

we find that the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 if

successful, will not result in any benefit to the petitioner. In fact, the

petitioner was not even a claimant to the post of Joint Director, NCERT.

Therefore, the petitioner has no private interest in the matter. Further, there

can be no public interest in a service matter. This has categorically been

held by the Supreme Court in R.K.Jain v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC

119. The Supreme Court observed that:-

"In service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. Third party has no locus standi to

canvass the legality or correctness of the action."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a decision

of the Supreme Court in the case of J.M.Desai v. Roshan Kumar AIR

1976 SC 578 in order to submit that he did have a locus standi to invoke

the certiorari jurisdiction. However, on going through the said decision we

do not find anything in his favour. He is definitely not the "person

aggrieved" and, therefore, we would not like to exercise our certiorari

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the said decision, the

Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 12 thereof that in order to have

locus standi to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an

"aggrieved person". In the said decision, it is further observed that if the

petitioner does not fulfill that character and is a „stranger‟ the Court will, in

its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special

circumstances. The Court also noted that the expression "aggrieved person"

is an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. However, the Supreme

Court, after examining the various earlier decisions, observed in paragraph

33 that the Supreme Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in

order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal

or individual right in the subject matter of the application, though in cases

of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed

or modified. The Supreme Court observed further that in other words, as a

general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal

interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in

the matter.

4. Unfortunately, the petitioner does not have any interest in the matter

nor has he any legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3

to the post of the Joint Director, NCERT. Therefore, in our view the

petitioner does not have the locus standi to pursue this writ petition. The

writ petition is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 25, 2012 hk