RISHI KANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46303 of 2003 (Asha Ram Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Ors.) whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the orders impugned in the writ petition dated 23rd October, 2002 and 24th October, 2002 have been quashed.

(2.) The facts remain that on 30th June, 1997 the post of Head Master of the institution in question had fallen vacant. On 17th June, 2002 necessary advertisement was made. On 06th September, 2002 selection was made in favour of the Appellant, the Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. On 23rd October, 2002 approval to the appointment of the Appellant was made. On 24th October, 2002 appointment order was issued to the Appellant. On 01st November, 2002 Appellant joined in the respective post of Headmaster of the institution. Thus, the Appellant, Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, was appointed as regular Headmaster of the institution in question following the process of law. The writ petition was filed by the Respondent No. 5, writ Petitioner in the writ petition, on 14th October, 2003 i.e. after about one year from the date of joining of the Appellant, wherein no interim order of stay was granted by the Court at the time of entertaining such writ petition. However, after a period of seven years from the date of making the writ petition and about eight years from the date of joining of the Appellant on the post of Headmaster, the approval to the appointment of the Appellant and the appointment letter of the Appellant were cancelled and the writ petition was allowed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with such order of learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge the Appellant, Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, raised various preliminary objections, one of which is that the Respondent No. 5- writ Petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition in view of the fact that he was not a candidate for selection for the post, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of such contention, he had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 9th November, 2009 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1172 of 2009 (Km. Vijeta Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors.). The relevant portion of such judgment is quoted hereunder: