- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner, who is an Advocate in district Court Deoria claims himself to be social worker, has dragged a poor widow lady Smt. Gulabi Devi widow of Late Mohan Misra of his own village up to this Court pretending it to be in Public Interest without describing the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation and sought relief of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10. 3. 2008 by which respondent No. 4 has alleged to have recalled his earlier order dated 15. 12. 2007 and has di rected the Senior Treasury Officer to release all the payments to Smt. Gulabi Devi. A further writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for di recting the respondents No. 3 and 4 to complete the inquiry against Smt. Gulabi Devi, who is respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, within a specific time and further commanding the respondent No. 5 not to release the payment due to the respondent No. 6.
(2.) THE reliefs sought for in the writ petition rest on the assertions that the petitioner lodged a complaint vide letter dated 3. 7. 2006 to the Secretary (Basic) Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh alleging therein that respondent No. 6 who was working on the post of Paricharika (Class IV post) in Indira Gandhi Kanya Junior High School, Deoria, at the time of her appointment had submitted a forged migration/transfer certificate dated 24. 5. 58 indicating her age as 10 years 10 months on the date of issue of said certificate, whereas on the death of her husband she obtained a succession certificate from the Collector, Deoria on 14. 2. 1992 disclosing her age as 50 years. Thus, according to such succession certificate the respondent No. 6 ought to have been retired from service in the year 2002 instead of 2007 as availed by heron the strength of forged migration/transfer certificate. It is stated that on the said complaint Up Basic Shiksha Adhikari was directed to enquire into the matter and find out as to what is the truth in the allegations made in the complaint. THEreupon Up Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 28. 7. 2006 directed the respondent No. 6 to appear in his office to defend the allegations made in the complaint. A copy of letter of petitioner dated 3. 7. 2006, a copy of migration/transfer certificate of respondent No. 6, a copy of succession certificate dated 14. 2. 1992 and a copy of letter of Up Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 28. 7. 2006 are on record as Annexures-1 to 4 of the writ petition. THEreafter Up Basic Shiksha Adhikari sent a copy of alleged migra tion/transfer certificate to the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur to verify the genuineness of the same. THEreafter on 18. 12. 2006 the petitioner sent a detail representation to the Collector, Deoria to look into the matter and get it enquired by District Basic Education Officer, Deoria within a week so that public interest at large may be protected. It is further stated that on 6. 1. 2007 the Additional District Magistrate, Deoria sent a letter to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria requiring certain documents in regard to the appointment of respondent No. 6. On 13/15. 12. 2007 the Additional District Magistrate, Deoria again issued an official letter to Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria to send the required documents to his office within a week. On 15. 12. 2007 the petitioner again personally served a letter to Prabhari Zila Adhikari (Chief Development Officer, Deoria) contending that the appointment of respondent No. 6 on the post of Paricharika has been obtained by committing fraud and proper inquiry should be made in this connection by the Chief Development Officer, Deoria and the petitioner vide this letter also requested the concerned officer to stop all payments to the respondent No. 6 till completion of inquiry. In pursuance of afore said letter of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 directed the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria to stop all payments due to the respondent No. 6 till the inquiry with regard to appointment of respondent No. 6 is completed. It is stated that now vide order dated 10. 3. 2008 the respondent No. 4 has recalled his order dated 15. 12. 2007 without completing the inquiry. It is further submitted that despite so many reminders sent by the petitioner to all the authorities concerned, inquiry against the respondent No. 6 has not yet been completed and now by order dated 10. 3. 2008 the respondent No. 4 has directed the Senior Treasury Officer to re lease the payments due to the respondent No. 6. It is also stated that despite best effort the petitioner could not obtain order dated 10. 3. 2008, hence finding no alternative the petitioner approached this Court through above noted writ petition. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5. The order which I propose to pass in the writ petition, I need not to ask any counter-affidavit either from the respondent No. to 5 or from the respondent No. 6, instead thereof the writ petition is liable to be disposed of as fresh on preliminary issue of locus stand of the petitioner itself to file instant writ petition.
(3.) AT the very outset, it is necessary to point out that in connection of locus standi of the petitioner to move before this Court in para 5 of this petition only this much has been stated that the petitioner is social worker and has complained against the respondent No. 6, therefore, he has locus stand/to file this petition. Except the aforesaid statement he has nowhere stated that as. a social worker what services he has rendered to the downtrodden and weaker section of society by now and how for and in what manner he is ventilating their cause who are not in a position to ventilate their grievances by their own in the Courts of law or at other appropriate forum. In absence of necessary averments made in the writ petition in this regard, it is very difficult for this Court to make any inquiry about his working as social worker and assume his locus stand for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking writ of certiorari and mandamus. Now the question which arises for consideration is that as to whether the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved person so as to entitle him to approach this Court for relief sought for or not? In this connection, it would be useful to examine some case law on the question of locus standi for seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;