Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. That takes us to the second prayer seeking writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the appointments of Shri Ramacharyulu and Shri Mukul Pande as Additional Secretaries in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. A writ petition seeking a relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the appointments without seeking the relief that petitioner should be appointed as an Additional Secretary, is a relief where petitioner has to plead his locus but the writ petition does not plead any locus standi of the petitioner for filing of the writ petition. Putting it in other words, a person has locus standi if his personal interest is affected, and then only such a person has a right to file judicial proceedings including a writ petition to quash the appointments of certain persons to certain posts. Once petitioner does not seek his appointment to the subject post as per the prayers made in the writ petition which have been reproduced above, the petitioner would have no locus standi to seek writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the appointments of Shri Ramacharyulu and Shri Mukul Pande because in the absence of locus the only other way for the petitioner to seek quashing of the appointments of Shri Ramacharyulu and Shri Mukul Pande as Additional Secretaries of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat would be by seeking a writ of certiorari or a declaration of illegality of appointments in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and admittedly the present writ petition is not a PIL. If a person is wrongly appointed to a public post then for questioning the appointment of such a person to a public post can be done by filing of a Public Interest Litigation as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Centre for PIL and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 1; State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 1 and N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 1, however as already stated above the present petition is not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation as per the averments made in the writ petition and which averments essentially pertain to injustice caused to the petitioner as petitioner is claimed to have been illegally denied the post of Additional Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat including on account of non- framing of requisite rules, petitioner being downgraded so far his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports(APARs) are concerned etc etc.

15. (i) The fourth writ petition being W.P. (C) No.5981/2015 came to be filed by the petitioner because petitioner's APARs were downgraded and if the down gradation of the petitioner would be correct, then, the petitioner cannot seek appointment as an Additional Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Petitioner, therefore, filed the fourth writ petition being W.P. (C) No.5981/2015 questioning and challenging his down gradation in APARs for certain years. In the meanwhile, one Shri N.K. Singh was appointed as the Additional Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the petitioner in the fourth being W.P. (C) No.5981/2015 also questioned the appointment of Shri N.K. Singh because the petitioner's case consistently has been that he should be appointed as the Additional Secretary of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

(ii) Thus, the fact of the matter therefore is that till the petitioner succeeds in getting his downgraded APARs quashed, the petitioner cannot succeed for being appointed as an Additional Secretary in Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

16. Counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the present writ petition had to be filed because the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wrongly appointed Shri Ramacharyulu and Shri Mukul Pande as Additional Secretaries in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat although the issue with regard to certain APARs of the petitioner were subjudice before this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5981/2015, however, this argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is a totally frivolous argument inasmuch as merely because a person questions in the judicial proceedings down gradation of his APARs will not mean that there is an automatic stay of operation of such APARs. It is only if the petitioner succeeds in his writ petition being W.P. (C) No.5981/2015 by setting aside the down gradation of his APARS that the petitioner then can at that stage claim that his employer/Rajya Sabha Secretariat should not act on the basis of the downgraded APARs, but, merely because challenge to APARs is pending does not mean that APARs are automatically stayed on the ground that APARs are "subjudice" as argued on behalf of the petitioner.

21. I may finally note that the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2/Rajya Sabha Secretariat did argue that after all the petitioner was considered along with Shri Ramacharyulu and Shri Mukul Pande for being appointed as an Additional Secretary, and the petitioner can only at best claim a right of consideration and not a right of appointment, however, I am not going into the same inasmuch as that would be going into the merits of the case and which need not be gone into in view of the fact that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the reasons as already stated above. In fact, as already stated above, this writ petition if it sought appointment of the petitioner as an Additional Secretary cannot succeed unless the petitioner first succeeds not only in his writ petition being W.P. (C) No.5981/2015 wherein petitioner's down gradation of APARs have been questioned and but also in W.P. (C) No.9295/2015 wherein petitioner's cancellation of the promotions of the years 2001 and 2007 are questioned.