Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1031 (JHR)

Ajai Kumar Pathak v. Union of India

2011-11-24

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT I.A. No. 2074 of 2011 and I.A. No. 2075 of 2011 By Court In the first I.A.,(I.A. No. 2074 of 2011) it has been prayed that from the cause title of writ application, respondent number 2, The State of Bihar be deleted and in place of the State of Bihar, State of Jharkhand be substituted. Similar prayer also made that the name of respondent number 3, Regional Institute of Technology be deleted and in its place, National Institute of Technology be substituted. Aforesaid prayer is allowed. 2. In I.A. No. 2075 of 2011, it is stated that respondent number 9, Sri Pravin Prasad and respondent number 13, Dr. S.R. Prasad had died during the pendency of this writ application. Thus their names be deleted from the cause title. Aforesaid prayer is also allowed and name of respondent numbers 9, Sri Pravin Prasad and 13, Dr. S.R. Prasad are struck off from the cause title of writ application. C.W.J.C. No. 1853 of 1998 (R) 3. In the present writ application, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs :- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order No. RIT(E) 613/97 dated 22.9.1997 by which Mr. Pravin Prasad has been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Prodn. Engg. and Management and also for quashing the appointment of Mr. A.K. Jha, who has been appointed vide order No. RIT(E)/615/97 dated 22.2.1997 in pursuance of advertisement dated 10.8.1996: (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/Direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appointment of Mr. A.K.L. Srivastava on the post of Asstt. Professor, Applied Mechanics as well as the appointment of Sri A.K. Khan on the post of Asstt. Professor (Civil Engg) in pursuance of advertisement made in the year 1995 ; (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s), direction(s) of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire appointments in pursuance of advertisement made in the year 1995,1996 and 1997 by which several persons were appointed on the post of Lecturer, Asstt. Professor and Professor in an illegal manner; (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to conduct a proper enquiry in connection with the appointments made in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur since 1996 when Mr. Professor and Professor in an illegal manner; (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to conduct a proper enquiry in connection with the appointments made in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur since 1996 when Mr. B.B. Prasad was the Chairman of Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur followed by Mr. Deonath Prasad ; AND/OR (e) Issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Asstt. Professor in the respective faculties ; AND/OR Any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. So far 1st prayer is concerned, it relates to quashing of appointment of Sri Pravin Prasad. Since Sri Pravin Prasad has already died, thus this prayer has become infructuous. Under the said circumstance, no relief can be given to petitioners with respect to first prayer. 5. So far 2nd prayer as contained in clause-(b) is concern, it is relevant to mention that same relates to quashing of appointment of Sri A.K.L. Srivastava and Sri A.K. Khan on the post of Asstt. Professor, Applied Mechanics and Asstt. Professor (Civil Engg) respectively. It is worth mentioning that aforesaid Sri A.K.L. Srivastava and Sri A.K. Khan were appointed on the aforesaid post on the basis of an advertisement which took place in the year 1995. It is nowhere stated in the writ application that petitioners also applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement of the year 1995. However, in the writ application, it is alleged that some irregularities took place while appointing Sri A.K.L. Srivastava and Sri A.K.Khan, respondent numbers 11 and 12. It has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in R.K. Jain versus Union of India, (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 119 that the question of validity of appointment on the ground of irregularities committed by selection committee can only be looked into, if the proceeding initiated on behalf of aggrieved person. As noticed above, in the instant case, petitioners did not apply for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1995, thus petitioners are not aggrieved persons. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, relief sought for cannot be granted to them. 6. As noticed above, in the instant case, petitioners did not apply for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1995, thus petitioners are not aggrieved persons. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, relief sought for cannot be granted to them. 6. Now coming to third prayer, it is relevant to mention that petitioners challenged the appointment of several persons, who were appointed in pursuance of advertisement of the year 1995,1996 and 1997. But said appointees were not impleaded in this case as party respondent. Under the aforesaid circumstance, behind their back, no adverse order can be passed. Accordingly, aforesaid prayer cannot be allowed. 7. So far fourth prayer is concerned, petitioners prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to make enquiry regarding the irregularities committed by Mr. B.B. Prasad and Mr. Deonath Prasad, the then Chairmen of Regional Institute of Technology, now National Institute of Technology, (N.I.T.) It is worth mentioning that in the writ application, certain allegations of malpractices and/or malafide alleged against aforesaid two persons, but they had not been impleaded in this case. Thus in my view, behind their back, no adverse order can be passed. Thus fourth prayer made by the petitioners cannot be allowed. 8. From the own showing of petitioners, they have applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the year 1996 and participated in the interview, but they had not been selected, thus, their cases already considered by respondents. Under the said circumstance, fifth prayer made by petitioners is misconceived, therefore cannot be allowed. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, same is dismissed.