Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Singh vs The State Of M.P on 26 October, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-16838-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-16838-2021
(SANTOSH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ in
nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to take further action
as per the order dated 31.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) with regard to
recovery and disciplinary action against respondent no.6.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to take action against the officer who so ever may involve
in the illegal appointment of computer operators.
(iii) Any such order and further order which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper.
It is argued that the petitioner has made a complaint before the
Collector with regard to illegal appointment of Computer Operators in the
school. On 31.12.2018 the Collector has constituted a committee for making
enquiry upon the complaint made by the petitioner. The enquiry was got
conducted and the report was sent to the District Education Officer. The
District Education Officer has cancelled the illegal appointment on the basis
of enquiry report with an observation that separate proposal with respect to
the recovery and disciplinary action against the guilty Block Education Officer
shall be made vide order dated 31.08.2019. It is submitted that after passing
of order dated 31.08.2019 no further action has been taken by the
respondents/authorities. The petitioner is aggrieved by the in action on the
part of the respondent no.4 in not taking any further action in pursuance to
the order dated 31.08.2019. He has approached the respondents/authorities
time and again for redressal of his grievances but of no consequence;
Signature Not Verified
SAN
therefore, the present petition is being filed for an innocuous relief to direct
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.10.28 09:35:57 IST
2 WP-16838-2021
the respondent no.4 to comply with his own order dated 31.08.2019.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer and has submitted that no such relief can be extended to the
petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.18387/2020
(M.P. Karamchari Congress Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)
order dated 06.01.2021, which was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.64/2021 vide order dated 10.02.2021. It is argued that on the
complaint made by the petitioner action was already taken by the District
Education Officer in pursuance to the enquiry report submitted before him
and the illegal appointments of computer operators were cancelled. Now, the
petitioner is aggrieved by the observations made by the District Education
Officer in order dated 31.08.2019; wherein, he has observed that separate
orders regarding recovery and other action to be taken against the Block
Education Officer will be passed. No such relief as claimed by the petitioner
can be extended to him in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid case as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party
and the petitioner cannot explain violation of any legal rights or statutory
provisions. He could not even point out that what grievances or legal injuries
caused to him. In such circumstances, he has prays for dismissal of the
petition.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner is complainant and on his
complaint the action was taken by the Collector and the Committee was
constituted to look into the matter of appointment of computer operators.
The enquiry report was submitted and certain illegalities were found in
appointment of computer operators and on subsequent action the
appointments of computer operators were cancelled. There was an
observation made by the District Education Officer in order dated 31.08.2019
to the following effect:-
Signature Not Verified
"nks"kh fodkl[k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) i`Fkd ls vuq'kklukRed dk;Zo kgh ,oa
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.10.28 09:35:57 IST
3 WP-16838-2021
'kkldh; /ku gkfu dh jkf'k dh olwyh laca/kh dk;Zo kgh izLrkfor dh tkosxhA"
As far as entitlement or locus of the petitioner to file the present
petition is concerned the petitioner is required to fall under the definition of
aggrieved person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid
aspect in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465 and has held as under:-
"€œ9. 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. Infact, the existence of such right, is
the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal
right 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. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952
SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas
Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC
1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Kumar R. Chanji
v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719 has held as
under:-
"A "€œlegal right€Â, means an entitlement arising out of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.10.28 09:35:57 IST
4 WP-16838-2021
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."
In the present case, the petitioner although a complainant in the case
has failed to demonstrate that what legal prejudice or injury has been caused
to him. The action has already been taken by the authorities on the complaint
made by the petitioner and the illegal appointments have been cancelled as has
been admitted by the petitioner himself.
In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN
KHAN
Date: 2021.10.28 09:35:57 IST
