JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner is a Senior Manager (Housing) in the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur (the Corporation). An order dated 21 October 2014 was passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, in supersession of all the earlier orders, that the petitioner shall take over the charge of the office of Incharge Industrial Estate of the Corporation. This order was soon withdrawn on 21 October 2014 itself. It is the subsequent order dated 21 October 2014 that has been assailed in this petition and a direction is sought that the Managing Director of the Corporation should permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Incharge Industrial Estate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5822 of 2014 seeking a writ of quo warranto against Arun Kumar Mishra who was posted as Chief Engineer (Project) in the Corporation as he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post. This petition was allowed by the judgment dated 29 August 2014 and it was directed that Arun Kumar Mishra has no authority to hold any post including that of Chief Engineer (Project) in the Corporation. It has also been pointed out that this judgment dated 29 August 2014 was assailed by Arun Kumar Mishra before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Petition in which an interim order was passed on 25 September 2014 that the services of Arun Kumar Mishra shall be continued and the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed until further orders. 3. According to the petitioner, he was called by the Managing Director of the Corporation at his residence after he had joined as Incharge Industrial Estate on 21 October 2014 where he found Arun Kumar Mishra already sitting in the drawing room. According to the petitioner, a proposal was made that the Corporation would appreciate if the petitioner did not contest the matter in the Supreme Court. This suggestion of the Managing Director of the Corporation was not accepted by the petitioner and that is why the order dated 21 October 2014 was soon recalled by the Managing Director by passing a fresh order in the evening of the same day. 4. This suggestion of the Managing Director of the Corporation was not accepted by the petitioner and that is why the order dated 21 October 2014 was soon recalled by the Managing Director by passing a fresh order in the evening of the same day. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been treated fairly and as he had joined as Incharge Industrial Estate on 21 October 2014, the withdrawal of this order has led to the loss of his reputation. It is also his contention that once the Managing Director of the Corporation had appointed him as the Incharge Industrial Estate, the withdrawal of the said order in an arbitrary manner and that too without recording any reason is illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant, (2001) 1 SCC 182 . 5. An intervention application has been filed on behalf of Krishna Pratap Kaushik and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shishir Prakash have made submissions on behalf of the intervenor. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that a public interest litigation (PIL No. 35628 of 2013) had earlier been filed by Krishna Pratap Kaushik in which the present petitioner Anil Kumar Verma was impleaded as respondent No. 6. It was alleged in this public interest litigation that respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and particularly respondent No. 6, had amassed properties beyond reasonably imaginable source of income and the following order was passed by the Court on 4 July 2013 : “It is alleged in this PIL that the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 particularly respondent No. 6 have amassed property beyond reasonably imaginable sources of income. Considering the background litigation referred above, the dimensions of the matter and also the fact that delay in investigation can often be fatal to collection of evidence, we are of the opinion that pending notice to the private respondents a preliminary investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation represented by Sri N.I. Jafri, Advocate into the allegations. The status report as a result of the preliminary investigation be submitted to this Court by the C.B.I. within three months. The status report as a result of the preliminary investigation be submitted to this Court by the C.B.I. within three months. We also direct that the Managing Director, UPSIDC will ensure that the relevant records are made available to the CBI and the investigation is not hampered because of the circumstances as mentioned in the above referred letter dated 22.3.2013. It has been argued from the petitioner’s side that despite such serious allegations and despite earlier transfers of the respondent No. 6 made on recommendations/complaints, not only the respondent No. 6 has been brought back shortly after the transfer but has been permitted not only to continue on that post but also to hold a dual charge. If this contention is factually correct, to say the least, it a little disturbing. Issue notice of this petition to the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 by registered post. Steps to be taken by registered post within a week. The other respondents who are represented today may also file their counter-affidavits within one month.” 6. Respondent No. 6-Anil Kumar Verma filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the said order which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a recall application. Respondent No. 6 then filed a recall application which was rejected by the Court on 5 October 2013. Subsequently, an order dated 3 November 2014 was passed by the Court in the public interest litigation which is as follows : “A status report has been submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/AC-III/New Delhi dated 11 July 2014. We have perused the status report. Having due regard to the contents thereof, we are inclined to accede to the request which has been made by the CBI to convert the preliminary enquiry into a regular case for taking the enquiry to its logical conclusion. It is ordered accordingly and the CBI is, having due regard to what has been placed on the record in a sealed cover, permitted to convert the preliminary enquiry to a regular case [PE 7(A)/2013, CBI, AC-III IN]. At this stage, we are not inclined to accede to the submissions which have been made on behalf of the sixth and the seventh respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed and that the orders which have been passed by the Division Benches in the pending proceedings should be vacated. At this stage, we are not inclined to accede to the submissions which have been made on behalf of the sixth and the seventh respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed and that the orders which have been passed by the Division Benches in the pending proceedings should be vacated. Though the sixth and seventh respondents were not heard when the initial order was passed on 4 July 2013, in pursuance of the order that was passed by the Supreme Court on 26 July 2013 on the special leave petition both the sixth and the seventh respondents were heard in support of their recall applications, which were pressed by the learned Senior Counsel duly instructed. Having regard to the contents of the status report, which has been placed before the Court, we are of the view that such a request for dismissal of the petition which has been filed in the public interest cannot be entertained. The petitioner has in the jurisdiction which has been invoked in public interest drawn the attention of the Court to certain facts on the basis of which a preliminary investigation was ordered to be conducted by the CBI. As a matter of public interest, it would not be appropriate for the Court, at this stage, to accede to the request which has been made on behalf of the sixth and seventh respondents. We are, in order to ensure that the investigation is not impeded, refraining from making any observation on the merits of the issues which the petitioners have sought to raise in the petition or in regard to the contents of the investigation which has been carried out by the CBI thus far. We, accordingly, grant permission to the CBI in terms as sought, as noted above, and direct that the petition shall now be listed before the Court on 20 January 2015. All pending applications shall be listed together with the proceedings on the next date of hearing. Replies, if any, shall be filed at least two weeks before the next date of listing.” 7. This order dated 3 November 2014 was assailed by Anil Kumar Verma in Special Leave to Appeal No. 30264 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12 November 2014. 8. Replies, if any, shall be filed at least two weeks before the next date of listing.” 7. This order dated 3 November 2014 was assailed by Anil Kumar Verma in Special Leave to Appeal No. 30264 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12 November 2014. 8. It is emphasised by learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor that the Division Bench in the order dated 4 July 2013 had observed that giving of a dual charge to respondent No. 6 (the present petitioner) would, if the factual position was correct, be disturbing and that the Court also permitted the CBI to convert the preliminary enquiry against respondent No. 6 to a regular case. It is, therefore, his contention that the writ petition should be dismissed. 9. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the petitioner does not have a vested right to hold the post of Incharge Industrial Estate and the Managing Director of the Corporation committed no illegality in recalling the order earlier issued for appointment of the petitioner as Incharge Industrial Estate. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is not in dispute that the substantive post which the petitioner is holding is that of Senior Manager (Housing) in the Corporation. It is only on 21 October 2014 that the Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order for giving charge of Incharge Industrial Estate to the petitioner. The petitioner may have joined on 21 October 2014 but the order was soon withdrawn on 21 October 2014 itself. The petitioner has not placed any Rule or Regulation of the Corporation which entitles him to be appointed as the Incharge Industrial Estate. It was purely the discretion of the Managing Director of the Corporation to have appointed the petitioner as Incharge Industrial Estate. The contention of the petitioner that the order had been withdrawn at the behest of Arun Kumar Mishra against whom the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo-warranto and which petition was ultimately allowed on 29 August 2014 cannot be accepted for the reason that Arun Kumar Mishra has not been impleaded as a respondent in this writ petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not have a vested right to be appointed as the Incharge Industrial Estate which charge was given to him in addition to the charge of substantive post of Senior Manager (Housing) which the petitioner was holding. 12. What we find from the records is that though the petitioner has referred to the writ petition which he had filed against Arun Kumar Mishra but he has not made any reference of the public interest litigation that had been filed by Krishna Pratap Kaushik, namely PIL No. 35628 of 2013 in which the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 6. This fact has been brought to the notice of the Court by Krishna Pratap Kaushik. The allegation that had been made against the petitioner was that he had amassed properties beyond imaginable source of income and taking note of the averments that had been made in the writ petition, the Court directed a preliminary investigation to be conducted by the CBI. The Court also found it disturbing that despite such serious allegations, the present petitioner had been permitted to hold a dual charge. The CBI conducted a preliminary enquiry and made a request to the Court to convert the preliminary enquiry into a regular case. The Court, having due regard to what had been placed before it in a sealed cover, permitted the CBI to convert the preliminary enquiry to a regular case. In view of these facts, it was not appropriate for the Managing Director of the Corporation to have given the additional charge of Incharg Industrial Estate to the petitioner. The order withdrawing the charge, therefore, is justified. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the Managing Director of the Corporation acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner while withdrawing the order appointing the petitioner as Incharge Industrial Estate. In such circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that withdrawal of the earlier order dated 21 October 2014 has caused loss of reputation cannot also be accepted. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objections to the filing of the intervention application. According to him, the Corporation alone could have brought these facts to the notice of the Court and Krishna Pratap Kaushik who had merely filed the public interest litigation cannot bring these facts to the notice of the Court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objections to the filing of the intervention application. According to him, the Corporation alone could have brought these facts to the notice of the Court and Krishna Pratap Kaushik who had merely filed the public interest litigation cannot bring these facts to the notice of the Court. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the intervention application is not that of Krishna Pratap Kaushik but of Masook Ali, who claims to be a resident of Allahabad. 14. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The intervenor has only brought to the notice of the Court the various orders that had been passed in the public interest litigation in which the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 6 and against whom allegations of amassing property beyond known source of income had been made. The petitioner could have authorised a person to swear the affidavit filed in support of the intervention application. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since allegations of mala fides have been made, the petition should not be dismissed and a response should be called from the respondents cannot also be accepted. Mere making of allegations and that too without impleading the person against whom the allegations have been made cannot be made a ground to contend that the petition should be entertained at this stage. 16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it will not be appropriate to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————