NISHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Mr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 6.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the selection process to the post of Lecturer (Geography) in a grant in aid minority institution, which is in Pithoragarh (Uttarakhand). The case of the petitioner is that she was a candidate for the post of Lecturer (Geography) in the above selection. It is further contended that the manager of the institute demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from her in order to give her the appointment. The petitioner agreed to give the amount and collected the said money from various sources, including from bank as loan and thereafter this money was given to the manager! It is further stated that when the appointment was not given to her, she has now challenged the entire selection process before this Court, by means of the present writ petition.

(3.) On the above averments made by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this writ petition for the simple reason that there is ah admission on the part of the petitioner that she gave "bribe" to the manager for procuring the post of a Lecturer (Geography) in a grant in aid school. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not liable to be invoked on such admitted facts of the case as in the present writ petition. Amongst other, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also based on principles of equity. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shangrila Food Products Ltd. and another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, 1996 5 SCC 54 has held as under: