High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vijai Kumar & Another v. Regional Higher Education Officer & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1048 of 2005  RD-AH 3020 (16 September 2005)
Chief Justice's Court
Civil Misc. Application No.................of 2005
Special Appeal No. 1048 of 2005
Vijay Kumar Singh and another
Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur and others
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
This is an application seeking leave to appeal.
The ultimate attempt of the applicants is to have an appellate order whereby the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, Sunil Ambwani,J dated 24.3.2005, (inter alia) allowing the writ petition no. 6609 of 1997 would be reversed in appeal and the writ petition would thereby be dismissed.
That writ petition was filed by the two clients of Mr. Khare who are the respondents in this application and by the expression respondents herein, we shall refer to only those two respondents before us.
By the expression applicants, we shall mean the two applicants who are the clients of Mr. Baghel.
The said order dated 24.3.2005 disposed of other matters too and one of the principal issues was the validity of the applicants' appointments and as to whether they should be regularised in the two concerned posts of laboratory assistant and routine grade clerk.
By a Division Bench judgment delivered by us on 5.5.2005 in Special Appeal No. 518 of 2005, Brij Bhushan Singh and others vs. Regional Higher Education Officer and others, we have held against the applicants and we have held that although they were working de facto for a long period, their appointments simply could not be regularised; we have held that their selection was not valid and the details thereof are available in our judgment, which we have already signed.
It is now submitted by the applicants that they should have been made a party to the writ petition of the respondents also, they should have been specifically heard and that this had not been done; the disposing of of the writ petition suffers from an initial defect. They seek to point out that the initial appointment of the respondents was at least as bad as their own, if not worse, and therefore, their writ petition should have been dismissed.
The point of locus standi naturally arises, it arises in this way. The respondents came into the institutions, no doubt, through the said two posts of laboratory assistant and routine grade clerk, although one of them has now become junior assistant accountant, and therefore, fills a different post; but, it is submitted by the applicants, that if the writ petition of these two respondents were to be dismissed, the posts to which the applicants aspire would fall vacant and then and in that event, there would be advertisements for those posts. Although, the applicants are now age barred, if those very posts were to be advertised, they would have a possibility of applying before the Writ Court for obtaining age relaxation for their appointment to those posts; and if they regularly got selected after advertisements and the selection process, in this manner, they would get the jobs. Thus they seek to establish their locus standi and support their application for leave to prefer an appeal.
In our opinion, this argument seeking to support their locus standi does not hold good. If we consider a man on the street, i.e. a third party, who would be qualified to apply for the post of the laboratory assistant or the routine grade clerk, we would have no hesitation in holding that, that third party is not and never was a necessary and proper party in the writ application filed by the respondents. There is no difficulty in coming to this conclusion as the opposite conclusion would mean that the respondents would have to implead a very good section of the general population who would be theoretically qualified to apply for the two posts; that would be an absurd conclusion to reach. The applicants are worse situated than even the third party or the man on the street. This is because, they are not even qualified to apply for the two posts or any of those, even if those fell to be advertised. If they obtain an age relaxation then and only then would they be qualified to apply, if advertisements of the two posts were to be issued. This means, that according to them the locus standi of a proper or necessary party in the writ petition of the respondents, would have this logical consequence, that an even worse placed party than an ordinary stranger third party, would be allowed to be impleaded in the respondents' writ. This simply cannot be. As such, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.