IKHLAQ HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties. The case of the petitioner is that in the selection held in the year 2001, opposite party no. 7 was wrongly selected and the petitioner was rejected because the opposite parties did not allot proper marks to the petitioner and allowed manipulation to the opposite party no. 7. Learned standing counsel has pointed out that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 754(SS) 2006 before this Court. The petition was dismissed because the Court came to the conclusion that the petition was highly belated and it was filed after five years of the initial appointment. The petition was dismissed with the observation that this Court will not interfere. However, the petitioner is allowed to pursue his remedy elsewhere. Later on, the petitioner filed another W.P. No. 5771(SS)07 and the Court showing benevolence although dismissed the writ petition but directed opposite party no. 2 and 3 to take decision on the complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently filed the contempt petition No. 1119( C ) 2008, which was also dismissed finally. Now after the decision on the complaint by the opposite parties, the petitioner has again approached this Court for the same grievance, which arose in the year 2001. The petitioner, in all approached this Court four times; thrice in the writ petition and one through the contempt petition. Opposite party no. 7 was never issued notice because the Court earlier also, as today, could not find substance in the allegation of the petitioner and never called upon the opposite party no. 7 to answer in any manner. The approach of the petitioner is to harass the selected candidate, although initially for six years, he did not even agitate the matter. Such litigations and the writ petitions consume a lot of time of the Court. Compassion of the Court and indulgence is taken to be as an encouragement to usurp the precious time of the Court in frivolous litigation, while other petitioners and poor people who are in queue with their cases, are unable to get the benefit or any indulgence from the Court. Such practice can only be deprecated. It has been informed that the petitioner is a typist working in the Collectorate, Lakhimpur. His access to the Courts has perhaps encouraged him, to misuse the process of law, which is also a very bad sign for the other litigants. The writ petition is dismissed.