Decided on January 04,2017

Sri Arjun Kr. Dey Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


T.VAIPHEI,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-3-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 283 of 2015 dismissing the writ petition, the appellant is filing this appeal. The appellant in the writ petition was questioning the legality of the recruitment process for the post of Registrar, NIT, Agartala and the advertisement dated 15-5-2015 in connection therewith.
(2.) After hearing Mr. A. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the NIT, at some length, we are of the firm view that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge on different ground and on merit. The respondent authorities issued the said advertisement inviting applications from interested Indian nationals for filling up the post of Registrar in the National Institute of Technology. The appellant is an Assistant Professor of Tripura Institute of Technology under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura. He is admittedly eligible for the post and applied for the same by filing a duly filled up application on 30-6-2015. In our considered opinion, the sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether he has the locus standi to file the writ petition. The petition filed by the appellant was neither public interest litigation nor a writ of quo warranto. It may however, be noted that he cannot file a public interest litigation in a service or when he has a personal interest nor can also he file a writ of quo warranto inasmuch as he has personal interest in the post. The appellant cannot also said to be aggrieved person when he is eligible for the post or when his application for the post is not wrongly rejected. Three decisions of the Apex Court come to our mind in so far as the concept of locus standi is concerned, namely, Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, (1977) 1 SCC 486, Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33, and Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai and others, (2008) 5 SCC 217. In Mani Subrata Jain case (supra), the Apex court held: "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ferris : Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198.)"
(3.) In Ghulam Qadir case (supra), the apex Court observed: "38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds. If a person approaching the court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not having the locus standi. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.