MANIK LAL BHARITYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.B. Singh, appearing for Opp. Parties 3, 4, and 5.

(2.) Relief which the petitioner has sought in the Instant petition, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of wire-man in the Establishment in the light of the directions embodied in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shisuksha Berozgar Sangh and Ors., (1995) 1 UPBEC 320 (SC) and the consequent G.O. 9890/23-4-96 Sankhya B-1070/Ka-1/1996 Lucknow, dated Sept. 12, 1996 (Annexure 3 to the petition). Sri N.B. Singh appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5 raised certain objections having the complexion of preliminary objections and canvassed that the petition is had maintainable against the private party.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and regard being had to the decision in Pukhraj Mantri v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mill Federation Ltd., (1992) 1 UPLBEC 664, and the cases referred to therein, I am persuaded to the view that the preliminary objection is bereft of any substance. There is an element of public interest involved in the functioning of the respondents. 3 to 5. I, therefore, hold that fee petition is maintainable.