Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS is a thoroughly misconceived and ill -advised writ petition. Petitioner has sought following reliefs: A - A writ, order or direction in the nature of appropriate calling for the record in relation to the selection process for the post of Junior engineer (Control and Instrumentation) in relation to the control No. 107189, Roll No. 33408802, for General Category held in pursuant of Advertisement No. U02\ UPRVUSA\2008 i.e. annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. B - A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to keep one post vacant subject to decision of the instant writ petition, in pursuant of Advertisement No. U02\ UPRVUSA\2008 i.e. annexure no. 1 to this writ petition in relation to the control No. 107189, Roll No. 33408802, for General Category.
(2.) HOWEVER , the Court fails to understand as to what for the petitioner intended to call for record and a direction to keep a vacancy unfilled. Though in the pleadings some vague allegations of mala fide against Energy Minister has been levelled but none has been impleaded eo nomine, hence plea of mala fide cannot be entertained by this Court. It is well established that in order to level plea of mala fide a person against whom mala fide is pleaded must be impleaded by name. In State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held: It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.
(3.) IN , AIR 1996 SC 326, J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under: Further in the absence of impleadment of the...the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.;