Initiation Of Adversarial Litigation In Service Matters At The Instance Of A Stranger Or Busy Body Not Permitted: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busy body cannot be permitted.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition assailing the appointment of Respondent as Shiksha Mitra claiming it to be 'illegal' for alleged embezzlement of money.
The single-bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, "The law laid down by the Constitutional Courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busy body. The petitioners were required to satisfy that they are an aggrieved parties. The petitioners have failed to do so. The nature of legal rights sought to be enforced do not bring them in the definition of a person aggrieved."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Saral Singh while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.
The Court observed that the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the appointment of respondent as he is a busybody who simply wants to harass the respondent and therefore, the petition is an abuse of the process of the court.
It further stated that it is a settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters and cited Supreme Court judgement in Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others.
The Court observed that the existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others. The Court also mentioned Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the precondition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court also discussed on scope of Public Interest Litigations in service matters as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra.
The Court also looked into the consequences of entertaining Public Interest Litigations in service matters as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal.
The Court accordingly concluded that the law laid down by the Constitutional Courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busy body.
"The petitioners do not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Further the petitioner cannot canvass any public interest in this writ petition, in light of the restrictions imposed by judicial authorities discussed earlier," the Court observed.
The Court accordingly imposed a cost of ₹20,000/- on petitioner to discourage his conduct.
The Writ-Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Mirza Iqrar Beg vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Click here to read/ download Order:
