IMPORTANT POINT
Only individuals suffering legal injury have the standing to challenge administrative orders, as established in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Instant petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat raising a challenge to the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Also under challenge is that the order dated 06.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby respondent no.6 has been adjusted on the post of Rojgar Sewak in Gram Panchayat Pratappur Chamurkha.

3. A pointed query has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the locus of the village panchayat to challenge the adjustment order of respondent no.6.

4. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been unable to explain the locus of the Gram Panchayat in challenging the order of adjustment of respondent no.6 rather has urged various grounds on which the adjustment order is bad although has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No.681 of 2010 in re: Smt. Geeta Devi vs. Uma Shanker Yadav and others decided on 28.07.2010. As Sri Singh has vehemently argued on various grounds as such the Court proceeds to deal with the said grounds subsequent to considering the locus of the petitioner to file the petition.

5. As already indicated above, the Gram Panchayat has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the adjustment order of respondent no.6 in the petitioner's Gram Panchayat as Rojgar Sewak. As such, at the outset, the locus of the petitioner has to be seen.

6. The question of locus has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"...A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria .... A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons." (emphasis by the Court)

7. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held as under:

"A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate.

He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order."

(emphasis by the Court)

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj vs. State of U.P. and others-(2010) 2 AWC 1878 (All) has held as under:-

"12. According to our opinion a "person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

13. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition."

9. From perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) it clearly emerges that it is only a person who suffers from legal injury who can challenge the said act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in th