- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The appellant has challenged the order and judgement dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A no. 15405 of 2013, Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others by which the court has opined that petitioner will not be able to get any relief even if the aforesaid writ petition is entertained. The aforesaid judgement and order dated 19.3.2013 reads thus. "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was in the panel of selection of adhoc appointments as an Assistant Teacher in L.T.grade in Babu Ram Singh Inter College Badaun at serial no.2 along with respondent 6 Raja Ram. He contends that Raja Ram had obtained the appointment on the basis of forged certificates. The petitioner had contested the matter earlier also by filing a Writ Petition No.15453 of 2004 which was dismissed on 20.4.2004. The petitioner attempted another round of litigation after certain inquiries were made under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner appears to have succeeded in getting hold the information with regard to the forged certificates of the respondent no.6. The appointment of the respondent no.6 came to be cancelled which was challenged by the respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.35198 of 2007 and an interim order was granted on 7.8.2007 but the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is to be noted that the petitioner against the dismissal of his writ petition on 6.4.2004 had filed a special appeal. The same was dismissed with the observation that in case the services of Raja Ram has been terminated on the ground of forged certificates then the decision in the special appeal as well as the learned Single Judge will have no bearing on the writ petition filed by Raja Ram. The writ petition filed by Raja Ram has been dismissed for want of prosecution but has been restored on 13.7.2012 where after the petitioner applied for impleadment in the said writ petition The said impleadment application has been rejected vide order dated 5.2.2013. with the observation that in the event the petitioner is seeking any relief for himself it is open to him to file his own writ petition. The present writ petition is for the said purpose. In the opinion of the Court even if the services of the respondent no.6 are terminated and are held to be unlawful as on date the claim of the petitioner cannot be countenanced on the basis of the panel of 1992. There is no provision as on date that may allow the management to appoint or the authorities to approve the same under the 1982 Act or the rules framed thereunder. Thus the prayer is for a futile writ which cannot be issued. In the said circumstances the petitioner will not be able to get any relief even if the writ petition is entertained. The writ petition is dismissed."
(3.) The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order dated 19.3.2013 effects his legal right of appointment and in view of the fact that it is settled law that the party claiming fundamental right must move the court before the others' right come in existence; that the action of the court cannot harms innocent parties if their rights immersed by reason of delay on the part of the persons moving the Court. Therefore, the observation of the Court in the impugned order that even if the services of the respondent no.6 are terminated and are held to be unlawful as on date the claim of the petitioner cannot be countenanced on the post of the panel of 1992.;