The central legal point established is that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is contingent upon the existence of a legal right, statutory duty, and the need for the performance of public duties prescribed by statute.

JUDGMENT :

The principle of writ of mandamus and the circumstances under which it could be issued has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of following judgments:-

(i) As reported in 2007 (5) SCC 65, State of Manipur and others Vs. Y. Token Singh and Others, the relevant paragraph 18 is extracted hereunder:-

“18. Moreover, it was for the respondents who had filed the writ petitions to prove existence of legal right in their favour. They had inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It was, thus, for them to establish existence of a legal right, in their favour and a corresponding legal duty in the respondents to continue to be employed. With a view to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were obligated to establish that the appointments had been made upon following the constitutional mandate adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have not been able to show that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. It has also not been shown that the vacancies had been notified to the employment exchange.”

(ii) As reported in 2006 (12) SCC 561, State of Bihar and others Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, the relevant paragraphs 15 to 18 are extracted hereunder:-

“15. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal [(2005) 2 SCC 638 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 308] it was observed: (SCC pp. 654-55, paras 44-45)

“44. While construing a statute, ‘sympathy’ has no role to play. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of the said Act ignoring the binding decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court only by way of sympathy to the workmen concerned.

45. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies [(2004) 7 SCC 112 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 918] this Court rejected a similar contention upon noticing the following judgments: (SCC pp. 131-32, paras 68-70)

‘68. In a case of this nature this Court should not even exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on misplaced sympathy.

69. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh [(2004) 2 SCC 130] it is stated: (SCC p. 144, paras 36-37)

“36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision.

37. As early as in 1911, Farwell, L.J. in Latham v. Richard Johnson & Nephew Ltd. [(1911-13) All ER Rep 117 : (1913) 1 KB 398 : 108 LT 4 (CA)] observed: (All ER p. 123 E)

‘We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o’ the wisp to take as a guide in the search for legal principles.' ”

70. Yet again, recently in Ramakrishna Kamat v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 3 SCC 374 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 284] this Court rejected a similar plea for regularisation of services stating: (SCC pp. 377-78, para 7)

“We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for regularisation and under what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern their service conditions. They were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by Zila Parishads in view of the government orders and that their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge and looking to the very directions given, a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who com