XAVIER P MAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent No. 7 as Professor of Culture in the Department of Philosophy under the North Eastern Hill University. At the very outset, it may be noted that the copy of the impugned letter is not even annexed to this writ petition. It is contended by Mr. S. Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- University that the petitioner is not even a contender for the post in question and, as such, he has no locus standi to file this writ petition, in support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of the Apex Court Ghulam Quadir Vs. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC and Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486. The contentions of Mr. P. Dey, the learned counsel for the private respondent are also duly noted which are in pari materia with those of the learned counsel for the respondent-University. On the other hand, Mr. K. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urges that even though the petitioner is not a contender for the post in question, bearing in mind the gravity of the illegality and arbitrariness apparent on the face of record, this is a fit case for interference by this Court by ignoring the technicalities of the law of standing associated with normal litigations. Strong reliance is placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in K. Shekhar Vs. Indiramma, AIR 2002 SC 1230 and DC Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579. At this stage, it may be noted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is neither qualified for the post in question nor did he ever apply for the same.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his writ petition, it will be appropriate to examine the standing of the petitioner to challenge the validity of the impugned appointment. This is necessary. If the petitioner is found to have no standing to file this writ petition, I need not deal with the other points so raised by him. Ordinary, it is the person aggrieved and directly affected, who must seek the relief himself unless disabled from doing so for a good reason which permits someone else to seek the relief on his behalf. In that situation also, the claim is to be made in substance by the person affected even though the form be different and it is so stated expressly. In Mani Subrata Jain (supra), the appellants had asked for a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges, etc. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had no locus standi to file the writ petitions. The High Court had taken the view that the appellants were not appointed and had no right to be appointed nor did they have the right to know why they were appointed. Dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants, the Apex Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. This is what the Apex Court says:-

(3.) THE question of locus standi again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Ghulam Quadir (supra), a case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents-University. While duly noting the recent far-reaching changes in the orthodox rule of interpretation regarding locus standi, the Apex Court observes at para 38 of the judgment as follows:-