RAHRNATULLAH WANI Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Junior Engineer of PWD of Zanskar Division (Kargil) is seeking mandamus for execution of two irrigation projects only through him and restraining his superior from entrusting execution of the projects to some one else.

(2.) Heard on the question whether such relief can be granted and writ Petition entertained there to under Section 103 of the J & K Constitution and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, Junior Engineer, posted in PWD Division. Zanaskar Kargil, alleges that under orders of his superiors including Respondent No. 3, he has conducted survey and prepared drawings, and made computer typing, photo typing etc, while completing the project report on Kumee Chazar Canal and Pishoo canal in Zanskar area of District Kargil. Even, he presented the project report before NABARD which is financing the projects. Now when the survey and project, report is complete respondent No.3 is intending to get the works completed through the staff of the Irrigation department, which he cannot do to the prejudice of the interest of the petitioner and against the public interest. Petitioner has interest that he can earn a merit certificate/award if he completes the work and public interest in as-much-as he would get the project completed by his hard labour and efforts.

(3.) It is for the superior officers/competent authority of the State Government to judge how best a project can be executed and through which agency and by which experts the public interest would be better served. It is not for the petitioner who may have conducted the survey work and prepared the project report in discharge of his official duties to say that the work regarding which he has conducted survey and prepared project report, can be implemented/ executed only through him. Petitioner can not claim coalescence of both public and personal interest, in the matter of execution of the work financed by the NABARD. No fundamental or legal right of petitioner is violated, if the work is got executed by the agency/departmentally. Respondents are not obligated to get the work executed only through petitioner, a Junior Engineer of'the department. Besides in the over all facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner cannot be said to have any locus standi to plead for public interest when he wants execution of work to earn an award only, even if his version is believed for a moment. Petitioner can not have a vested interest to implement the work, after all as an employee is to do any work which is assigned to him/her and cannot take up a particular work in which he/she has interest. The writ petition, in the above view of the matter is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. Dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.