WPMS/1337/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2443 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1337 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Ahmad.                                         ...Petitioner
     (By Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand
& others.                                  ....Respondents
     (By Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional C.S.C. for the State
     of Uttarakhand)


                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a resident of Landhaura, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. According to him, the Chairman & Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Landhaura have made illegal appointments between the year 2000 to 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has already made a representation to Chief Secretary and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand be directed to take decision on petitioner's representation, which is on record as Annexure No.6.

3. A perusal of representation indicates that petitioner wants initiation of enquiry and cancellation

of all appointments, whether regular or contractual, made between the year 2000 to 2019. None of the persons, who were so appointed, have been made party to the writ petition.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that appointments were made without advertising the vacancies. However, the fact of the matter is that no advertisement is needed for making appointment on contract basis.

5. Learned Additional C.S.C. has referred to Inquiry Report submitted by Joint Secretary, Roorkee in support of his contention that all the appointments were made on contract basis. He further submits that petitioner has no locus standi in the matter and the present writ petition is abuse of process of law, inasmuch as, petitioner wants to settle his personal score with the persons, who have been appointed.

6. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned Additional C.S.C. Admittedly, vacancies need not to be notified for making appointment through outsourcing/contractual basis. Even otherwise also, appointments made during the last 20 years cannot be challenged at this belated stage. Moreover, persons, who have been appointed, are not before this Court.

7. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan