Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 865
Andhra Pradesh High Court
P.Sree Ramulu Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Venkateswara University, Tirupati - Respondent
Decided On : 11-27-95
Third parties have no locus standi to challenge appointments of teaching staff in university without impleading affected parties.
Headnote:
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - LOCUS STANDI - APPOINTMENTS OF TEACHING STAFF IN UNIVERSITY - THIRD PARTIES - NO LOCUS STANDI TO CHALLENGE APPOINTMENTS - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation challenging the appointments of teaching staff in the 1st respondent-University during the months of August-November, 1992 by an Advocate and Research Associate in the 1st respondent-University respectively. The petitioners alleged that the appointments were arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Articles 14,15 and 16 of the constitution of India and that the involvement of the 2nd respondent in the selection of teaching staff was biased, illegal, and motivated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the appointments of the teaching staff in the university without impleading affected parties, seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in regard to the matter relating to service jurisprudence.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the appointments of the teaching staff in the university without impleading affected parties? 2. Whether the public interest litigation was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the appointments of the teaching staff in the university without impleading affected parties, as they were not personally affected by the appointments and had no legal right to seek redress for the alleged grievances. 2. The court held that the public interest litigation was not maintainable as the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the appointments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation and raised similar questions of law. Therefore, they are disposed of by common judgment
( 2 ) THE two writ petitions are filed assailing the appointments of the teaching staff in the 1 st respondent-University during the months of August-November, 1992 by an Advocate and Research Associate in the 1st respondent-University respectively and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Articles 14,15 and 16 of the constitution of India and the involvement of the 2nd respondent in the selection of teaching staff is biased, illegal and motivated and the appointments are vitiated, without folio wing the merits of the candidates and selected only candidates without Ph. d. , qualifications even though number of Ph. d. , candidates and even more higher qualification candidates were available in abundance and the consequential vacancies were filled up without advertising the posts. Roster system was not followed i. e. , reservation policy has not been followed and in the notification calling for applications, post-wise reservation is not published. Therefore, the entire selections are vitiated in violation of Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. It is apparent on the face of the selection that a number of candidates belonging to a particular community were selected and the University laws are not followed while making selection. Thus, the entire selection of candidates to the teaching posts may be quashed by setting aside the appointments. Counters are filed by the respondents denying the allegations made in the writ petitions and stated that the allegations made in the writ petitions are baseless. The respondents have followed the University laws and selections were made by the s election Committee as per the merits of the candidates. The Selection Committee constituted with Heads of Departments, three external members and other Members. Therefore, the contention that the respondents made selections without following the university Laws are not correct. The reservation policy is followed by roster system which is in vogue in Universities since long time and Rule 22 of the A. P. State and subordinate Service Rules was strictly followed in appointing the candidates for the reserved posts. There are no merits in the writ petitions making baseless allegations against the respondents. The petitioners have no locus standi in the service matters and the writ petitions filed as public interest litigation are not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
( 3 ) THE preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this point itself. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one petitioner is an advocate, who is interested in the welfare of the Society and maintaining the merits of the teaching staff of the University and see that the reservations are strictly followed by maintaining roster system. Therefore, as an advocate, he has got locus standi to bring to the notice of this Court the irregularities committed in the appointments for the teaching staff of the University. The other writ petitioner is a Research Associate of the University. Therefore, his writ petition is maintable.
( 4 ) IN view of the above contentions, the important question of law that arises for consideration is whether the third parties have got locus standi to assail the appointment of the teaching staff of the university without impleading affected parties, seekingjudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in regard to the matter relating to service jurisprudence. Prior to the advent of public interest litigation, the persons who were not having legitimate claim were excluded to seekredress of the grievances in Courts due to many reasons. D
