Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 87 (CAL)

Sekhar Chandra Set v. State of West Bengal

2003-02-26

Bhaskar Bhattacharya

body2003
JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. By this writ application, the writ petitioner, who was an Assistant Professor of Town Regional Planning of Government of West Bengal and posted in the Department of Architecture, Town Regional Planning of Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur at the time of filing of this application has challenged the rules and criterion of selection of merit promotion scheme under G. O. No. 668/669-EDN(t) dated October 5, 1989 and draft proforma approved by the respondent No.3 being Annexures "A & D" to the instant writ application. 2. According to the petitioner, the scheme is ambiguous, perverse, arbitrary, discriminative and illegal. The petitioner complains that leave of formulation of rules of Merit Promotion Scheme suffered from partial and mala fide approach. 3. There is no dispute that during the pendency of this writ application, the writ petitioner has since retired from service with effect from October 31, 2002. 4. It is now settled position of law that a person can maintain a writ application if any act or inaction on the part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India infringes any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. It is also settled law that a right to maintain a writ application postulates a subsisting personal right in the claim which the petitioner makes and such right must exist not only on the date of presentation of the writ application but also on the date of disposal of the same. (See Kalyan Singh vs. State of Uttarpradesh & Anr., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1183 at paragraph 14). 5. In the present case, although the petitioner had such right at the time of filing of this application but today, he having retired from service has no such right. 6. Thus, I am of the view that after the retirement of the petitioner from service, this writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner as be cannot be permitted to enforce or defend somebody else's rights. 7. I thus dismiss this application on the aforesaid ground alone. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merit of this writ application. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. 8. No costs. Appeal dismissed.