Narinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppointment – Right to challenge – When writ to quo warranto could be issued – Society registered under the Societies Registration Act appointing appellant as project officer in 1994 on being sponsored by the employment exchange – Respondent filing writ in 1997 seeking declaration that the appellant was not qualified for the post – Respondent himself not in any manner aggrieved by the appointment since he was not an applicant for the said post nor entitled to claim the post by way of promotion – High Court allowing the writ and granting the relief sought – Validity. Held, respondent not disclosing any grievance before the court as to whether the appointment was in order or not, the High Court erred in entertaining the matter and granting the relief. The injustice to be caused to the appellant who had already served in the post for three years and who was on the verge of becoming over-aged for any appointment, had not been considered by the High Court. Therefore, order of High Court not sustainable. (Paras 3,4)
1. The appellant before us was appointed as assistant project officer on the establishment of district rural development agency, Hissar – Respondent nos. 3 & 4 on March 21, 1994 after appearing from amongst candidates sponsored by employment exchange for the post which was lying vacant for quite some time. This appointment was challenged by respondent no. 5 by filing a writ petition on various grounds. He sought for the relief of issuance of a writ of quo warranto to declare that appellant is not qualified for the post of assistant project officer.
2. The High Court proceeded to consider the matter on merits without examining whether the post held by the appellant is a public office or not. It is clear from the findings recorded by the High Court; firstly that the establishment is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and as such, it cannot be stated that the post held by the appellant could be a public office to warrant the issue of a writ of quo warranto. Therefore, the relief granted by the High Court in this regard is plainly improper.
3. The High Court ought not to have examined the merits of the case at the instance of respondent no. 5 when he himself was not in any manner aggrieved by the action taken by the establishment in appointing the appellant as assistant project officer inasmuch as he could not have claimed such a post by way of promotion nor was he an applicant to the said post. Thus, he did not disclose any grievance before the court to be investigated as to whether the appointment of the appellant is in order or not.
4. The appointment of the appellant was made as early as March 21, 1994 while the writ petition was filed on February 16, 1997, in which event when the petition was entertained belatedly and the matter was sought to be investigated when the appellant had already served for almost three years and if his appointment is quashed at this stage, when he is on the verge of becoming over-aged for any appointment, it would have caused immense injustice to him. This aspect should have been borne in mind by the High Court before entertaining the matter.
5. These three aspects to which we have adverted to having been lost sight of, we think the order made by the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent no. 5 shall stand dismissed.
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
