Taxpayers do not have the locus standi to challenge a government order reinstating a discharged employee unless their legal or personal rights are directly affected.

DAS, J.

( 1 ) THE two petitioners who are residents within the area of the Rambha Notified area Council have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing the order of the Government allowing the appeal of the Head Clerk of the Rambha n. A. C. in a disciplinary proceeding against the Head Clerk.

( 2 ) THE petitioners contend that opposite party No. 3 was appointed as Head clerk of the Rambha N. A. C. Several charges were framed against him and after enquiry he was discharged from service. As against the said order opposite party No. 3 preferred appeal as provided under Section 77 of the orissa Municipal Act to the State Government. The State Government allowed the appeal of opposite party No. 3 and directed to reinstate him. During the pendency of the appeal the post of Head Clerk was abolished by the N. A. C. After receipt of the Government order the Executive Officer wanted clarification from the Government and he has been informed that the order of the government is to be complied with. The petitioners challenge the Government order on the ground that the order of reinstatement is illegal as there was no post of Head Clerk in the N. A. C. while the Government order was passed. The petitioners contend that as they are taxpayers their interest is vitally affected if the order of the Government is implemented. It is further contended that opposite party No. 3 was not qualified and also was not otherwise eligible for the post of Head Clerk as provided under the Orissa Municipal Rules.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite parties that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Government as they have no right either legal or personal or proprietary to give rise to a cause of action for this petition. It is contended that the petitioners being merely taxpayers and the N. A. C. having not launched any new scheme financially affecting the funds of the N. A. C. the petitioners can have no grievance in such a matter and they have no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioners that as the government order for reinstatement of opposite party No. 3 affects the financial position of the N. A. C. , they as taxpayers, are vitally interested and as such can enforce their right.

( 4 ) IT has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that a person having no legal or personal right or any property right cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Indisputably no fundamental right of the petitioners has been affected in any way. The contention of the petitioners is that as they are taxpayers they are interested in the expenditure to be made by the N. A. C. for payment of the back dues of opposite party No. 3 when his appeal was allowed by the State Government and the N, A. C. was directed to reinstate opposite party No. 3. It appears from the petition filed by the petitioners that they were Councillors of the N. A. C. while opposite party No. 3 was discharged from service. They passed a resolution abolishing the post on the day following the day when opposite party No. 3 preferred appeal before the State Government under section 77 of the Orissa Municipal Act. It is thus clear that the intention of the petitioners was to see that some how or other opposite party No. 3 is not retained in service. Ultimately the appeal filed by opposite party No. 3 was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated. In ordinary course opposite party no. 3 has a right to be reinstated when his appeal is allowed. The post was in existence at the time when the punishment of discharge from service was imposed on opposite party No. 3. Only during the pendency of the appeal before the State Government the N. A. C. passed a resolution abolishing the post. After the appeal has been allowed and opposite party No. 3 has been directed to be reinstated, it is