Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 635 (ALL)

Shri Krishna v. State of U. P.

2015-03-30

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The special appeal is against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant is a Headmaster of a Primary School. He joined the Primary School on 7 August 2012. On 7 August 2014, the appellant was suspended by the District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit, the third respondent. The appellant challenged the order of suspension in a writ petition in which an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16 September 2014. The learned Single Judge noted that the appellant was suspended on the ground that he had been transferred to another Primary School, but had not complied with the order of transfer. The learned Single Judge noted the statement of the appellant that he was ready and willing to join at the new place of posting and consequently, directed that the appellant may make a representation to that effect in which event, the District Basic Education Officer, shall permit the appellant to join at the new place of posting and the order of suspension shall be kept in abeyance. After this order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 September 2014, an order was passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 9 December 2014, revoking the suspension and permitting the appellant to join at the earlier place of posting. 3. The appellant filed a second writ petition seeking an independent enquiry against the sixth respondent on a complaint submitted by the appellant on 31 May 2014 and prayed for a certiorari quashing the appointment of the sixth respondent as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School conducted by the second respondent. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as being misconceived. 4. The case of the appellant is that he had submitted a representation on 31 May 2014 to the Collector, Pilibhit, making several complaints against the sixth respondent. However, the basic issue is whether the appellant is entitled to a mandamus for an independent enquiry against the sixth respondent and to seek a certiorari challenging the appointment of the sixth respondent as an Assistant Teacher. 5. The appointment of the sixth respondent has absolutely no bearing on the conditions of service of the appellant. The appellant has no locus to seek a certiorari challenging his appointment. 5. The appointment of the sixth respondent has absolutely no bearing on the conditions of service of the appellant. The appellant has no locus to seek a certiorari challenging his appointment. Similarly, there was absolutely no reason for entertaining a challenge of this nature seeking an enquiry into the complaints made by the appellant against the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is subject to his own conditions of service and the competent authority is entitled to exercise his regulatory control over all employees. However, such a direction could not have been issued at the behest of the appellant who, as the facts would indicate, has his own dispute with the authorities. Hence and for these reasons, we have agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was misconceived though for the reasons which we have indicated hereinabove. The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.