BASANT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter of appointment dated 15th April, 2005 issued by the respondents in favour of Col. Mahavir Singh Verma appointing him to the post of Manager in the Station Canteen, Delhi Cantonment. This petition is filed as a public interest litigation by the Secretary, Khajan Singh Memorial Trust. The allegation is that the aforesaid appointment in favour of Mahavir Singh Verma is illegal and in violation of the Standing Operating Procedures adopted by the respondents. In support of his submission counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-1 to the writ petition which is a Convening Order dated 27th January, 2005, that provides the guidelines and criteria for selecting candidates. One of the criteria in the said Convening Order is that the age of the candidate selected for appointment to the post of Manager of Station Canteen shall not be more than 57 years.

(2.) It is contended before us by the petitioner that Col. Mahavir Singh Verma is aged more than 57 years and therefore his appointment is illegal. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has placed before us the revised Standing Operating Procedures which were issued by the respondents in the month of February, 2005. A perusal of the revised Standing Operating Procedures indicates that the criteria of upper age limit of the candidate has been changed from 57 years to 58 years.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is not maintainable on more than one grounds. By way of the present writ petition, the appointment of Col. Mahavir Singh Verma is challenged. Such a challenge could only have been made by a candidate who had also appeared in the interview for selection to the post of Manager in the Station Canteen. The petitioner herein cannot in any manner be said to be personally aggrieved by the aforesaid selection of Col.Mahavir Singh Verma as he has not applied for being considered to be appointed to the said post. The petitioner is not directly concerned and affected by the impugned order. In this connection we may refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313: