[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde vs Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura on 3 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
WP No. 84515 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 84515 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. MANIK S/O. MANOHAR SHINDE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. KUD QUARTERS,
PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SIDDANNA S/O. NINGAPPA RAMAPURA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
R/O. DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY,
BASAVESHWAR ARTS COLLEGE, BAGALKOT.
2. SHRI. BASAVESHWAR ARTS COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
VISHAL VEERAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA MORABAD
NINGAPPA AGE: 62 YEARS,
PATTIHAL
R/O. STAFF QUARTERS,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA BASAVESHWAR COLLEGE, BAGALKOT.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
WP No. 84515 of 2013
HC-KAR
6. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
DHARWAD REGION,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO:
A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER
NO.ED:72:UPC:2012 DATED 22.05.2012 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER
ANNEXURE-K.
B) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BE ISSUED TO RECRUIT THE
PETITIONER TO THE POST OF BACKLOG ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN HISTORY IN RESPONDENT NO.2 COLLEGE
VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 11/12/2012 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A and etc.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner seeks the following prayer:
A) A writ of certiorari to quash the order
No.ED:72:UPC:2012 dated 22.05.2012 passed by
respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.1 as per
Annexure-K.
B) A writ of Mandamus be issued to recruit the petitioner to
the post of Backlog Assistant Professor in History in
respondent No.2 college vide notification dated
11/12/2012 as per Annexure-A and etc.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shrikant T. Patil,
appearing for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.J.S.Shetty,
appearing for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP-Smt.Girija
Hiremath, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.
3. The petitioner is said to be a stranger to the
proceedings, who calls in question the regularisation or
continuance of appointment of the first respondent in the second
respondent institution. It is the case of the petitioner that the
regularisation of the first respondent has happened contrary to
law, for the reason that no reservation policy was followed or
otherwise. The petitioner is neither in employment nor was a
contestant against the first respondent for appointment or
regularisation as the case would be.
4. The State Government has preferred its detailed
statement of objections. The Learned HCGP taking this court
through the statement of objections would seek to demonstrate
that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the second
respondent institution and has projected the subject petition
which is in the nature of a public interest petition. Therefore, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
HC-KAR
petitioner has no locus to challenge the regularisation of the first
respondent.
5. There is no warrant to keep the petition pending for
the satisfaction of the petitioner that the petition is pending till
today. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra
and others1, wherein the Apex Court has held that a person
who has no locus cannot maintain a writ petition to challenge the
appointment of others. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot
be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies
the authority/court, that he falls within the category of
aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or
suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order,
etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of
enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a
complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of
statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there
must be a judicially enforceable right available for
enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is
resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the
performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its
writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such
person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on
such performance. The existence of such right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is
implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that
the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In
fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the
exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right
(2013) 4 SCC 465
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
HC-KAR
that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the
appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right
and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of
legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The
expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person
who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a
person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose
right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of
Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289] , a similar
view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person
claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he
cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the
election or the selection of other persons.
12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.[(2011) 7 SCC
616], this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25)
"25. ... The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an
elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within
the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its
scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such
as the content and intent of the statute of which the
contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the
case, the nature and extent of the complainant's interest and
the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered
by the complainant."
13. This Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas
corpus petition, has explained that the expression "next
friend" means a person who is not a total stranger. Such a
petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete stranger to
the person who is in alleged illegal custody.
14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts
against entertaining public interest litigation filed by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
HC-KAR
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to
abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to
justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime,
must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to
guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy
within the framework of the judicial system must be
provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court
must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact,
genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain
strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process
of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not
granted a visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems
of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an
earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the
subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it.
15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest
litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course
of action is not permissible so far as service matters are
concerned.
16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC
33], this Court considered a similar issue and observed as
under : (SCC p. 54, para 38)
"38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition
that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the
case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo
warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of
a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal
right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated
is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of
interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach
the court has undergone a sea change with the development
of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17095
HC-KAR
courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with
the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on
hypertechnical grounds. ... In other words, if the person is
found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever
to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the
ground of his not having the locus standi."
(emphasis added)
17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be
summarised to the effect that a person who raises a
grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury.
Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post
or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of
others."
6. In the light of afore quoted judgment of the Apex
Court and the admitted fact that the petitioner is neither a
participant in the selection process nor a contestant to the
regularisation of the first respondent, the petition cannot be
maintain. The petition ought to have been dismissed with
exemplary costs, but this Court is holding its hands for the
reason that it is pending for so long. The petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT:ANB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
