# Gram Panchayat Pratappur Chamurkha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10894 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gram-panchayat-pratappur-chamurkha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50994
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-The
petitioner,
Gram
Panchyat, Chamurkha filed a writ petition
challenging the adjustment order dated
6.07.2024, appointing respondent no.6 as
Rojgar Sewak in the Gram Panchayat, and
the rejection of their representation dated
21.10.2024-The Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench, dismissed the petition on
the grounds of lack of locus standi-The
court held that the petitioner failed to
establish any legal injury or right affected
by the impugned orders-The petitioner
raised various grounds, including nonresidency
of
the
appointee,
lack
of
disciplinary authority, absence of rules for
adjustment and alleged expiration of
appointment
tenure-However,
these
grounds
were
found
to
be
legally
unsustainable-Furthermore,
the
petitioner's reliance on the decision in
Smt. Geeta Devi case was deemed
inapplicable to the facts of this case-The
court
reiterated
that
only
a
person
aggrieved by a legal injury can challenge
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an act, and mere sentimental or fanciful
grievances are insufficient.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Gram Panchayat Pratppur Chamurkha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
namely Sri Chaturvedi had itself been
cancelled prior to issue of select list by the
respondents. Thereafter, the respondents
have issued a fresh advertisement no.3 of
2024.

26. Once even a selected candidate has
got no indefeasible right for appointment
and the petitioner was never declared as
selected and a fresh advertisement has been
issued consequently this Court does not
have any occasion to direct the respondents
to
make
selection
from
the
earlier
advertisement more particularly when a
fresh advertisement has already been issued
by the respondents.

27. So far as challenge raised to the
advertisement no.3 of 2024 is concerned
whereby
as
per
the
petitioner
the
qualification has been changed for the post
in question even without seeking the
approval from the UGC and the said
qualification being not a qualification
prescribed by the UGC, suffice to state that
the
last
date
fixed
for
receipt
of
applications
in
terms
of
the
said
advertisement was 06.04.2024. In case the
petitioner was aggrieved by the said
advertisement he should have challenged it
within the last date fixed for receipt of the
applications but he chose not to do so and
only in the month of August 2024 that he
has
chosen
to
challenge
the
said
advertisement by means of instant petition.
For this act, the petitioner has to thank
himself and the Court is not expected to
come to the rescue of a litigant who
chooses not to challenge the advertisement
timely rather challenges it only at the time
when the said selection has proceeded to a
substantial stage.

28. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 10894 of 2024

Gram Panchayat Pratappur Chamurkha
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-The
petitioner,
Gram
Panchyat, Chamurkha filed a writ petition
challenging the adjustment order dated
6.07.2024, appointing respondent no.6 as
Rojgar Sewak in the Gram Panchayat, and
the rejection of their representation dated
21.10.2024-The Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench, dismissed the petition on
the grounds of lack of locus standi-The
court held that the petitioner failed to
establish any legal injury or right affected
by the impugned orders-The petitioner
raised various grounds, including nonresidency
of
the
appointee,
lack
of
disciplinary authority, absence of rules for
adjustment and alleged expiration of
appointment
tenure-However,
these
grounds
were
found
to
be
legally
unsustainable-Furthermore,
the
petitioner's reliance on the decision in
Smt. Geeta Devi case was deemed
inapplicable to the facts of this case-The
court
reiterated
that
only
a
person
aggrieved by a legal injury can challenge
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an act, and mere sentimental or fanciful
grievances are insufficient.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Geeta Devi Vs Uma Shanker Yadav &
ors., SPLAD No. 681 of 2010

2. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector (2012) 4
SCC 407

3. R Vs London Country Keepers of the Peace of
Justice(1890) 25 QBD 357

4. Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 2
AWC 1878 All

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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 Staterespondents.

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
11 All. Gram Panchayat Pratppur Chamurkha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
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
the eyes of law because it may not result in
injury to a legal right or legally protected
interest.
A
fanciful
or
sentimental
grievance may not be sufficient to confer a
locus to sue upon the individual.

10. Likewise, from the judgment of
this Court in the case of Dharam Raj
(supra), it also emerges that a person who
suffers from legal injury only can challenge
the act/action/order by filing a writ petition
and that a person aggrieved would mean a
person who is wrongly deprived of his
entitlement which he is legally entitled to
receive.

11. After summarizing the principles
on the point of locus of a person to
challenge the order, the Court now
proceeds to consider the grounds as raised
by the petitioner in order to challenge the
orders impugned.

12. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the orders
impugned are bad in the eyes of law as (a)
the Rojgar Sewak who is to be appointed
should be a resident of the same village, (b)
as the Gram Panchayat is not the
appointing authority of respondent no.6
consequently the Gram Panchayat would be
precluded from initiating any disciplinary
proceedings against her in case she
commits any misconduct, (c) there is no
provision for adjustment of a Rojgar Sewak
in some other village, and (d) as the
respondent no.6 had been appointed on
16.05.2008 and she could only have been
appointed for a period of three years and as
such she could not have been validly
adjusted beyond a period of three years in
the Gram Panchayat of the village of the
petitioner.
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. As regards ground (a) that the
Rojgar Sewak to be appointed should be of
the same village, the said ground is patently
misconceived considering the fact that the
respondent no.6 has not been appointed in
the Gram Panchayat rather she has been
posted on an adjustment. Thus, the said
ground is rejected.

14. As regards ground (b) that in case
any irregularly is committed by respondent
no.6, the petitioner Gram Panchayat would
be unable to take any action as it is not the
appointing authority, the said ground also
merits to be rejected out rightly inasmuch
as once the respondent no.6 has been
appointed by some other Gram Panchayat
and has been adjusted in the Gram
Panchayat of the petitioner, it would always
be open for the petitioner Gram Panchayat
to inform the Gram Panchayat by which the
respondent no.6 may have been appointed
to initiate proceedings against her or to act
against her.

15. So far as the ground (c) that there
are no rules or any circular for adjustment
of a Rojgar Sewak, learned counsel for the
petitioner has also been unable to indicate
that there is any bar that a Rojgar Sewak
who has been appointed cannot be adjusted
in any village. The said ground is also
rejected.

16. So far as ground (d) is concerned,
the said ground is also found to be patently
misconceived considering that the petitioner
himself admits that the respondent no.6 had
been appointed way back in the year 2008
and has been continuing since last 16 years.
The petitioner has not brought on record the
appointment order or even the extension
order of respondent no.6 to indicate that she
could not have continued beyond three years
or for that matter her last extension was made
prior to a period of three years. Thus, in the
absence of any document to indicate to the
contrary, the said ground is also rejected.

17. Thus, from a perusal of the
aforesaid discussion it is apparent that none
of the grounds as have been raised by the
petitioner are legally sustainable in the eyes
of law.

18. Once from perusal of the aforesaid
grounds as raised by the petitioner it does not
emerge that the petitioner has got any legal
right or entitlement arising out of law and no
legal injury has been sustained by him after
passing of the aforesaid orders impugned,
consequently the petitioner has no locus to
challenge the orders impugned.

19. As regards the judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Geeta Devi
(supra), suffice to state that the said
judgment has not dealt with the locus of the
Gram Panchayat to challenge the order of
adjustment of Gram Rojgar Sewak. Thus, the
said judgment would have no applicability in
the facts of the instant case.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 178
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 504 of 2023

Mahendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents