Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is only a complainant. It appears that in respect to appointment of respondent No. 6 on the post of Shiksha Mitra he made a complaint which was examined by authority concerned and has been found incorrect, hence rejected.
(2.) PETITIONER , in my view, has no locus in this writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court in Amin Khan vs. State of U.P. : 2008 (2) AWC 2002 has said, "in case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis." The same view has been taken in another Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 382 of 2008 (Guru Prasad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 13.3.2008 and a single Judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18839 of 2008 (Shravan Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 11.4.2008.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner, however, placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Sarita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others : 2011 (1) AWC 793 to press his point that he has locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Having gone through the entire decision, I do not find anything therein which may show that the question of locus standi of a complainant has been considered and decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. In my view, the issue involved therein itself was a totally different and in any case, this Court did not consider the issue of locus standi in the aforesaid judgment, hence, it lends no support to petitioner in any manner. The reliance placed is totally misconceived.;