SURJIT RAI @ SURJIT Vs. NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sh. Surjit Rai seeking two reliefs. The first relief is for quashing of the appointment of respondent no.4 as Supervisor in the respondent no.1/employer/National Bal Bhawan. The second relief claimed is that the post of Supervisor which has been filled in by the respondent no.4 as a direct recruitment post, is illegal because the post in question cannot be filled by direct recruitment as it had to be by means of promotion from the existing employees of the respondent no.1.

(2.) IN my opinion, the second relief seeking to quash the appointment of respondent no.4 can only be available if relief is granted to petitioner of whether the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment but only by promotion as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. Of course, independently, the issue of entitlement of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor as an aspirant in the direct recruitment process will also be subsequently examined.

(3.) LET us now examine the argument seeking quashing of respondent No.4's appointment. The claim of the petitioner for quashing of the appointment of the respondent no.4 has two facets. The first facet is the challenge to the appointment on the ground that respondent no.4 did not meet the qualifications. On this aspect, I may note that the present writ petition is not a public interest litigation whereby appointment of respondent no.4 is sought to be quashed. The appointment of respondent no.4 is sought to be quashed because the petitioner claims appointment to the said post which is filled in by the respondent no.4. If the petitioner is not found capable of being appointed to the post, this petition need not be decided as a PIL with respect to fulfilling of qualifications by the respondent no.4 for being appointed as a Supervisor. Also, the argument on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is entitled to quo warranto writ in this petition itself, this argument is a misconceived argument because exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and more so in the facts of the present case, where the present petition is not a PIL but the same seeks to enforce personal rights of the petitioner, and which personal rights the petitioner does not have. Further the writ of quo warranto being a discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India I am not inclined to exercise the same after a lapse of time of as many as 16 years.