Das, J. - (1.)The two petitioners who are residents within the area of the Rambha Notified Area Council have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing the order of the Government allowing the appeal of the Head Clerk of the Rambha N. A. C. in a disciplinary proceeding against the Head Clerk.
(2.)The petitioners contend that opposite party No. 3 was appointed as Head Clerk of the Rambha N. A. C. Several charges were framed against him and after enquiry he was discharged from service. As against the said order opposite party No. 3 preferred appeal as provided under Section 77 of the Orissa Municipal Act to the State Government. The State Government allowed the appeal of opposite party No. 3 and directed to reinstate him. During the pendency of the appeal the post of Head Clerk was abolished by the N. A. C. After receipt of the Government order the Executive Officer wanted clarification from the Government and he has been informed that the order of the Government is to be complied with. The petitioners challenge the Government order on the ground that the order of reinstatement is illegal as there was no post of Head Clerk in the N. A. C. while the Government order was passed. The petitioners contend that as they are taxpayers their interest is vitally affected if the order of the Government is implemented. It is further contended that opposite party No. 3 was not qualified and also was not otherwise eligible for the post of Head Clerk as provided under the Orissa Municipal Rules.
(3.)A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite parties that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Government as they have no right either legal or personal or proprietary to give rise to a cause of action for this petition. It is contended that the petitioners being merely taxpayers and the N. A. C. having not launched any new scheme financially affecting the funds of the N. A. C. the petitioners can have no grievance in such a matter and they have no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioners that as the Government order for reinstatement of opposite party No. 3 affects the financial position of the N. A. C., they as taxpayers, are vitally interested and as such can enforce their right.