Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to enforcing private contractual rights or grievances against private agencies when public law elements are absent.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM MUKHEREJEE, J.

Facts of the case In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought for cancellation of the appointment given to the respondent no. 7 and to give him appointment in the place and stead of the said respondent no. 7.

A. Petitioner’s case:

1. Petitioner came across an advertisement published in a form of a circular dated 6th march, 2012 by Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the “FSSAI”) an autonomous statutory authority set up under the Food Safety and Standards Act (2006), (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for appointment in various posts in FSSAI at its headquarters/regional office on transfer or deputation, contractual or outsourced in various posts in FSSAI. The said circular is at page 32 of the writ petition. The same circular was also issued on 6th April, 2012 which is at page 33 of the writ petition. The petitioner having requisite qualification to apply as Technical Officer on short term contract applied for the same. The petitioner was called for an interview on 30th April, 2012 at the Kolkata office at FSSAI situated at Salt Lake. The interview letter was issued by the designated officer Dr. S.K. Mohanta on behalf of FSSAI at Kolkata and is at page 36 of the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that from reliable source it came to know that the petitioner was selected but was not given appointment. The petitioner therefore, made queries under the Right to information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act) which was received by the FSSAI on 3rd September, 2012. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to the queries in terms of such letter, the petitioner issued three reminder letters respectively 3rd September, 2012, 24th September, 2012 and 26th September, 2012. The Assistant Director (estt & Admn) of FSSAI on 21st September, 2012 (wrongfully typed as 2011) replied to the petitioner’s queries. That the letter was wrongly dated according to the petitioner. This will be evident from the said letter itself wherein petitioner’s application dated 21st August, 2012, 20th August, 2012 and 13 September, 2012 have been referred which could not had been done if the letter is dated 21st September, 2011. This letter is at page 40 of the writ petition. It appears from the said letter that there were six queries made by the petitioner. Against query no. 2, it has been stated “2 out of 4 recommended candidates joined as technical officer. Against Serial no. 3 it has been answered that the petitioner’s name was recommended for selection. In response to query under serial no. 4 it has been stated that “position/merit list were not allotted to the candidates” after the interview. Against query no. 6, the approved panel for Kolkata office was enclosed. The said panel is at page 42 of the writ petition.

2. On a perusal of the said panel, it appears that Assistant Director (F & A of FSSAI) on 31st may, 2012 forwarded a list of persons to A.S. Bedi of M/s. Bedi & Bedi Associates wherein it is stated that FSSAI has decided to outsource the services of the following persons through the said agency. M/s. Bedi & Bedi Associates was to give service to the said persons in FSSAI on consolidated wages for a period upto 31st July, 2012 as per standard terms and conditions. In the said list/panel the petitioner’s name is A in serial No. 2 while that o the respondent no. 7 is in serial no. 3.

3. FASSAI is the respondent no. 1 in the wit petition, the director (estt/Admn), the Deputy Director (estt/Admn) are respectively the respondent no. 2 and 3. Dr. Dhananjay Dhara is the respondent no. 7 and M/s Bedi and Bedi associates is added respondent