The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the appointment and the settled law that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in such disputes.

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Harishchandra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.9.2015 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor. By the aforesaid order, the District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor, granted initial approval in respect of the appointment of the respondent no.5/Monika Rani. Further prayer was made by the petitioner to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct the enquiry regarding validity and genuineness of domicile certificate of respondent no.5 and terminate her services and take necessary action in the matter within stipulated time.

3. The facts in brief are that in the Gram Panchayat Juzhaila, Vikas Khand-Noorpur, District Bijnor, there is a junior high school namely Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Juzhaila, Vikas Khand-Noorpur, Bijnor. The institution in question run and controlled by Basic Education Board, Allahabad/respondent no.3. The petitioner is claiming himself Chairman of Gram Shiksha Samiti being the Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. It is contended in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that respondent no.5 was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide letter of appointment dated 21.9.2015. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it was contended that after having knowledge regarding the aforesaid appointment of the respondent no.5, the petitioner being the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat made a complaint before the District Basic Education Officer as well as District Magistrate on 7.5.2018. The copy of the complaint is appended as annexure 2 to the writ petition.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.5 is resident of State of Uttarakhand, who applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in pursuant to the advertisement and forged domicile was submitted by the respondent no.5 while applying on the post in question and submitted the application form saying the resident of District Bijnor.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 contended that respondent no.5 got her appointment in pursuance of the Government Order dated 11.7.2013 and according to the said Government Order the candidates having the Indian citizen and ordinarily residing in U.P. since last five years, would apply for the post of Assistant Teacher.

6. The affidavit in the writ petition was sworn by the sole petitioner and nothing has been stated in the writ petition regarding source of information of the petitioner in this regard.

7. Apart from the same a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the petitioner has absolutely no locus to challenge the appointment of the respondent no.5.

8. Law in this connection has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the large number of the cases. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued in such disputes. The law in respect of the writ of mandamus is well settled by the Supreme Court in (Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (1972) AIR SC 2060) & (Veerappa Rachappa Saboji Vs. B.P. Dalal and another, (1975) AIR SC 773 ). In the aforesaid cases, the Court has reiterated its earlier decisions that a writ of mandamus can lie only when the petitioner has a legal right and statutory authority has failed to perform his duty under the statute.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470 and Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 has taken a judicial note that of late there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the Courts, including the Supreme Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification