# Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45858 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-pandey-v-pooran-singh-and-others-42705
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226 petitioner
seeking direction to decide representationcounsel fail to reply the provision-which
provides representation-nor disclosed as to
how his rights affected-held-no legal right to
enforce-petition-misconceived-dismissed.

Held: Para-4
Since no legal right has been shown to
exist
for
enforcement
whereof
the
petitioner has come to this Court, the
relief sought cannot be granted.

Case Law discussed:
(2008) 2 SCC 280; (1977) 4 SCC 145; AIR
1966 SC 334; 1993(1) SCC 485; 1991(3) SCC
47; 2007(5) ADJ 280(DB); 2001(1) ESC 317;
(1997)
8
SCC

## Text

1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. It is well settled that two wrongs will
not make one right. (See State of Bihar and
others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and
another, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India
and another Vs. International Trading Co.
and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit
Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others,
AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd.
etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR
2005 SC 565; and Kastha Niwarak G. S. S.
Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore
Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC
1142).

10. Recently a Division Bench of
this Court (of which I was also a member)
in Special Appeal No.375 of 2005 Shiv
Raj Singh Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And
Others, decided on 27.05.2011, has
considered this aspect in detail and in
paragraph no.22 it held as under:

"22. Once it is established that the
petitioner had no legal right of regularisation,
merely because some irregularities and
illegalities have been observed by the
respondents in some other cases with respect
to regularisation, that would not confer any
right upon the petitioner to claim parity. The
right of equality under Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution is a positive concept and not
a negative one. (See Post Master General,
Kolkata and others Vs. Tutu Das, 2007(5)
SCC 317; Punjab National Bank by
Chairman and Anr. Vs. Astamija Dash, AIR
2008 SC 3182; Punjab State Electricity
Board and others Vs. Gurmail Singh,
2008(7) SCC 245; M/s. Laxmi Rattan Cotton
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2009(1) SCC 565; Panchi Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others, 2009(2) SCC 589;
State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh,
2009(5) SCC 65; State of Uttaranchal Vs.
Alok Sharma and others, JT 2009(6) SC 463;
State of Punjab and another Vs. Surjit Singh
and others, 2009(11) SCALE 149; State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Ramesh
Chandra Bajpai, 2009(11) SCALE 619;
Shanti Sports Club and another Vs. Union of
India and others, 2009(11) SCALE 731;
Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of J & K and
others, JT 2009(13) SC 422."

11. In view of above discussion, the
writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45858 of 2013

Abhay Kumar Mishra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226 petitioner
seeking direction to decide representationcounsel fail to reply the provision-which
provides representation-nor disclosed as to
how his rights affected-held-no legal right to
enforce-petition-misconceived-dismissed.

Held: Para-4
Since no legal right has been shown to
exist
for
enforcement
whereof
the
petitioner has come to this Court, the
relief sought cannot be granted.

Case Law discussed:
(2008) 2 SCC 280; (1977) 4 SCC 145; AIR
1966 SC 334; 1993(1) SCC 485; 1991(3) SCC
47; 2007(5) ADJ 280(DB); 2001(1) ESC 317;
(1997)
8
SCC
488.
3 All] Abhay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1371
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. The only relief sought in the writ
petition is that the petitioner's representations
dated 12.7.2004, 31.8.2009 and 22.1.2013 be
directed to be decided.

2. Despite repeated query, learned
counsel for the petitioner could not at all
show as to under which provision such
representation is entertainable so as to cast an
obligation upon the respondent no.1 to
decide the same failing which the petitioner
who is entitled for issuance of writ of
mandamus. It is well settled that a writ of
mandamus would lie only if the petitioner is
enforcing a legal right and the respondents
are under a statutory obligation to do or not
to do something but have failed to do so.

3. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs.
Sunder Lal Jain and another,(2008)2 SCC
280 Apex Court after referring to its earlier
judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic
Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs.
Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj
Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR
1966 SC 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs.
State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485 and
observed as under:

"There is abundant authority in
favour of the proposition that a writ of
mandamus can be granted only in a case
where there is a statutory duty imposed
upon the officer concerned and there is a
failure on the part of that officer to
discharge the statutory obligation."

4. Since no legal right has been
shown to exist for enforcement whereof
the petitioner has come to this Court, the
relief sought cannot be granted.

5. Even otherwise, no person has
any right to seek a mandamus for getting
appointment on a particular post. In the
case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of
India, 1991(3) SCC 47 the Hon'ble Apex
Court said:

"7. It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right
to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
rules so indicate, the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State has
the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner.
The decision not to fill up the vacancies has
to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
And if the vacancies or any of them are filled
up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by
this Court, and we do not find any discordant
note in the decisions in State of Haryana v.
Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others,
[1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC
268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State
of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899."

6. In the case of U.P. Public Service
Commission, Allahabad and Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. and Anr., 2007(5) ADJ
280 (DB) in which rights of wait list
candidate was considered by this Court, in
para-15 of the judgment held:-

"A wait list candidate does not have
any indefeasible right to get appointment
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely for the reason that his name finds
place in the wait list."

7. This Court in taking the aforesaid
view relied upon the decision in Ved
Prakash Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.,
2001(1) ESC 317 and Surinder Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(1997) 8 SCC 488 and held that even a
select list candidate has no indefeasible
right to claim appointment. In para 31 of
the judgment in U.P. Public Service
Commission, Allahabad and Anr. (supra)
this Court has further held as under:

"Moreover, even in the case of a select
list candidate, the law is well settled that such
a candidate has no indefeasible right to claim
appointment merely for the reason that his
name is included in the select list as the State
is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancy and it can always be left vacant
or unfilled for a valid reason."

8. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down in Shankarsan Dash (supra) and
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
Allahabad & Anr. (supra), I am of the
opinion that petitioner has no legal or
statutory right to enforce.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and
it is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48536 of 2013
and W.P. 47944 of 2013

Ashok Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Manish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Irshad Husain
Sri Sanjeev Singh

Societies Registration Act 1960-Section
24(5) and 25 (2)-power of Registrar-during
investigation-it found that for last 5 years
no election took place-not the accounts
were properly checked-by impugned order
appointment of Ad-hoc committee to took
the day by day affairs till formation of new
committee-ousted member by general body
meeting spell out those members of Ad-hoc
committee-held-word
"any
officer
authorized by him"-includes appointment of
Ad-hoc committee in such circumstancesrequires no interference by writ courtresolution
of
management-without
jurisdiction-quashed.

Held: Para-18 & 19
18. Consequently, the Court is of the
opinion that the formation of the adhoc
committee by an order of the Registrar
dated 1st August, 2013 was justified in
the given circumstances, which requires
no interference.

19. The adhoc committee was required
to manage the affairs of the Society on a
day to day basis under the supervision of
the Registrar. The adhoc committee was
not required to take any major decisions
like
expulsion
of
any
permanent
members of the Society. Such resolution
passed
by
the
Committee
of
Management was ex-facie illegal and the
Registrar's
action
in
the
given
circumstances was justified in staying
the said resolution by an order of 20th
August, 2013. The Court finds that the
adhoc committee exercising its power in
expelling its members was wholly illegal
and that the Registrar was competent to
put the clock back and restore the
membership of the expelled members.