- (1.) Petitioners have sought following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus calling upon the entire records relating to the appointment of newly selected candidate in place of petitioners and same may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on the post of Mid-day Meal Cooks at their respective place as they were doing before their retrenchment. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay monthly salary each and every months to the petitioners.
(2.) No letter of appointment has been placed on record. Nothing has been said as to in what manner petitioners were appointed or that petitioners have any legal right to hold the post in question. In absence of any legal right to hold the post, no mandamus directing the respondents to allow petitioners to work can be granted. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something have failed to do so.
(3.) In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, 2008 2 SCC 280 decided on 8.1.2008 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, 1977 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, 1966 AIR(SC) 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 1 SCC 485and observed as under: " There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation." ;