Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 27 September, 2013
WRIT PETITION No.15870/2013 1
27.09.2013
Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondents-State, on advance copy.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the respondents to cancel the promotion of respondent No.7. It is contended that a complaint was made with respect to illegal promotion of respondent No.7 before the Lokayukt but since such a complaint is not inquired into nor any action is taken, this writ petition is required to be filed. The petitioner, according to his own showing, is only a citizen of India and has certain fundamental rights but he has no connection with the services. It is contended in the petition that the respondent No.7 though is promoted along with others on the basis of his seniority but since he has not qualified in the particular subject in which he has been promoted, he is ineligible to be promoted on the said post and, therefore, such an illegal order of promotion of respondent No.7 is liable to be quashed.
What locus the petitioner has to call in question the promotion of respondent No.7 is not disclosed. The service matters are to be agitated by those, who are going to be affected or those who are denied any benefit in the service, which illegally has been granted to some other ineligible persons. A writ petition is not to be entertained for the purpose of grant of writ of quo WRIT PETITION No.15870/2013 2 warranto in such circumstances. If the petitioner has any reason to believe that respondent No.7 could not have been promoted in the matter he has been, he can make a complaint before the competent authority of the State. Even the complaint made to the Lokayukt of the State is not with respect to such promotion. On the other hand, the complaint to the Lokayukt relates to some improper working of respondent No.7 and another person.
That being so, there is no substance in the writ petition nor the same is maintainable at the behest of the petitioner. The same is dismissed without notice to the other side.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc