R P SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner had prayed for a certificate of fitness under clause (1) of Article 132 and sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Artiicle 133 of the Constitution of India. However, at the time of hearing, Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confined the prayer only to sub-clauses (a) :and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for the post of Director of the Central Institute of Orthopaedics to the Union Public Service Commission to whom ,a requisition had been sent by the Government of India. Respondefit No. 3 was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed thereto. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the proceedings resulting in the selection ofres pondect No. 3; the recommendation of the Union Public Service Com mission in that behalf and for a direction against the Union of India not to make the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the said post on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission. No prayer was made in this petition that the petitioner should be appointed to the said post.

(3.) The petitioner claims a certificate under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution on the ground that the value of the subject matter of dispute in the first instance and still in dispute is more than Rs. 20,000.00 and this claim has been made on the basis that while the present emoluments of the petitioner were Rs. 1,635.00 per month, the emoluments pretaining to the post of Director, Central Institute of Orthopaedics were about Rs, 2,575, per month; that respondent No. 3 will be. holding this post for nearly 15 years and for this period the petitioner would be denied the right to be appointed to the said post. It is, therefore, contended that the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute is not less than Rs. 20,000.00. It is contended that the subject matter of dispute was the post of Director of the said Institute and its value, presumably according to the aforesaid figures, would be not less than Rs. 20,000.00. In our opinion, this claim is unfounded. The relief sought by the petitioner was against the appointment of respondent No. 3. Even if the apopintment of respondent No. 3 had been quashed by this Court, the post or the emoluments attached to it could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation as the petitioner had not claimed that he should have been appointed in place of respondent No. 3. Again, even if the appointment of respondent No. 3 had been quashed, the petitioner may or may not have had a chance or prospect to be appointed to that post and a mere chance or prospect of appointment to a post cannot be equated to the subject matter of the dispute for the purpose of sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, on his own showing, did not possess the essential qualifications for appointment to the said post.