BRAHMANAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 18.11.2008 by which upon the complaint made by the petitioner, an inquiry was made by the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Mandal regarding appointment of one Sunil Kumar. It appears that one Smt. Pushpa Devi was working on the post of Clerk who died in harness. No appointment was made and at that time Authorized Controller was managing the affairs of the institution. A permission by the District Inspector of Schools was taken and an advertisement in the local newspaper was made on 30.3.2006 and a Selection Committee consisting of two teachers of the institution, Smt. Suneeta Arya and Smt. Shiksha Devi was constituted and then one Sunil Kumar, respondent no.6 was given appointment on the post of Clerk and subsequently it was approved. It appears that the petitioner was having some grievance against the respondent no.6, as such he made a complaint and on his complaint/ information, the Joint Director of Education passed the order impugned which is dated 18.11.2008, annexure 5 to the writ petition. Prior to that date, the petitioner has sought some information from the Principal of the institution. The Principal of the Institution has submitted a report to the police station concerned dated 18.10.2008 which has been filed with the writ petition. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid letter/information the petitioner submits that it is clear that the petitioner was not having any knowledge or any procedure adopted by the authorized controller for the appointment of respondent no.6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. A specific question was put to the petitioner regarding having the grievance and how and under what circumstances, he is aggrieved. The petitioner submits that he was one of the candidates for appointment. The said contention of the petitioner is not acceptable because admittedly this was a post for appointment after the death of one of the employees. Admittedly the petitioner was not a dependent of the deceased employee. Further from the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, it is clear that the proper procedure has been adopted. The said order was passed only upon the complaint made by the petitioner. In my opinion if on the complaint made by a person, a proper inquiry by the competent authority has already been made and an order to that effect has already been passed, the question for consideration will be whether this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise the jurisdiction which has already been exercised on the basis of relevant records. It appears that as the petitioner was having some doubt, therefore, he made a complaint and now it has been decided by the competent authority that the appointment of the respondent no.6 was made in accordance with law and there is no fault in the procedure taken. I am of opinion that if such finding has been recorded by the competent authority, the complainant on whose behalf the proceedings has been initiated and an order has been passed, has no right to maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.