A challenge to an appointment must target the actual appointment order, not just related communications.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.12.2019, issued by the respondent – Panchayat Union.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary in the fifth respondent – Panchayat.

3. Even though the grievance of the petitioner is only against the sixth respondent, the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 does not refer to the sixth respondent. The impugned order only gives the details of the number of applicants, number of participants and number of absentees in the selection process. Only pursuant to the aforementioned selection process, the sixth respondent was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. The appointment order issued in favour of the sixth respondent has not been challenged. The petitioner has challenged the mere communication addressed to a person, by name, D.Sethu, dated 07.12.2019, who is not a party to this writ petition. When the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Panchayat Secretary, he ought to have challenged his appointment order.

The petitioner is also not having the benefit of any interim order from this Court even though this writ petition was filed in the year 2020.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.