# Sachin Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 168
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-07
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6383 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50993
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Service Law - Selection
and Appointment. Issue: Whether a
selected candidate has a right to the
post? Held: A selected candidate has no
vested right to the post, and the State
or its instrumentality may, for bona fide
reasons, choose not to fill up the
advertised vacancies. In the instant
case, the petitioner was never declared
as a selected candidate; rather, the
candidature of the selected candidate
was cancelled prior to the issuance of
the select list by the respondents.
Thereafter, the respondents issued a
fresh
advertisement.
Since

fresh
advertisement was already been issued,
the
Court
declined
to
direct
the
respondents to make selection from the
earlier advertisement. (Paras 24, 25,
26)

B. Civil Law - Service Law - Challenge
to Advertisement for Post. Petitioner
challenged advertisement no.3 of 2024
in the month of August 2024, whereas
the last date fixed for receipt of
applications
under
the
said
advertisement was 06.04.2024. Issue:
Whether the petitioner could challenge
advertisement no.3 of 2024 after expiry
of the last date for applications? Held:
If the petitioner was aggrieved by the
advertisement,
he
ought
to
have
challenged it before the last date. As
the petitioner chose not to do so and
filed the petition only in August 2024after
the
selection
process
had
proceeded to a substantial stage-the
Court declined to interfere. (Para 27)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. In view of the above discussion of
sections 2(4), 3, 22, 23, 24 CPC read with
Section 2(d), 2(e) and 7 of the Family
Courts Act, this Court is of the considered
view that since Lucknow Bench would be
the appellate court competent to hear the
appeals against an order passed by Family
Court situated in any of the courts
subordinate to it and functional within
its/their territorial limits of jurisdiction, the
transfer application in relation to a case
pending within those territories shall lie
before the Lucknow Bench being the
appellate court and not before the principal
seat at Allahabad where such an appeal
would be incompetent.

16. In view of the above, the instant
transfer application before this Bench is not
maintainable
and
it
is,
accordingly,
rejected. However, this order will not
preclude the applicant to file transfer
application before Lucknow Bench.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 168
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 6383 of 2024

Sachin Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Deep Narayan Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law - Service Law - Selection
and Appointment. Issue: Whether a
selected candidate has a right to the
post? Held: A selected candidate has no
vested right to the post, and the State
or its instrumentality may, for bona fide
reasons, choose not to fill up the
advertised vacancies. In the instant
case, the petitioner was never declared
as a selected candidate; rather, the
candidature of the selected candidate
was cancelled prior to the issuance of
the select list by the respondents.
Thereafter, the respondents issued a
fresh
advertisement.
Since

fresh
advertisement was already been issued,
the
Court
declined
to
direct
the
respondents to make selection from the
earlier advertisement. (Paras 24, 25,
26)

B. Civil Law - Service Law - Challenge
to Advertisement for Post. Petitioner
challenged advertisement no.3 of 2024
in the month of August 2024, whereas
the last date fixed for receipt of
applications
under
the
said
advertisement was 06.04.2024. Issue:
Whether the petitioner could challenge
advertisement no.3 of 2024 after expiry
of the last date for applications? Held:
If the petitioner was aggrieved by the
advertisement,
he
ought
to
have
challenged it before the last date. As
the petitioner chose not to do so and
filed the petition only in August 2024after
the
selection
process
had
proceeded to a substantial stage-the
Court declined to interfere. (Para 27)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shankarsan Dash Vs U.O.i. - (1991) 3 SCC 47

2. Tej Prakash Pathak & ors. Vs Rajasthan High
Court & ors. - 2024 INSC 847

3. Sanjay Tripathi & anr. Vs District Judge,
Hardoi, Service Single No.1893 of 2011 decided
on 27.08.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)
11 All. Sachin Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in
Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Deep Narayan Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent
no.1, and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for respondents
no.2 to 4.

3. Instant petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to make
selection of the petitioner on the post of
Assistant Professor, Agriculture Business
Management belonging to general category
in order of panel/merit list in the process of
selection
on
said
post
under
Advt.
no.9/2021 dated 30.12.2021.

ii. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to not
hold the selection process on the post of
Assistant Many Professor, Agriculture
Business Management belonging to general
category under Advt. no.3/2024 dated
04.03.2024.

ii-a. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the selection and appointment on
the post of Assistant Many Professor,
Agriculture
Business
Management
belonging to general category through
Advertisement No.9/2021.

iii. to issue a writ, order or
direction to the opposite parties to grant
approval of selection and appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Professor,
Agriculture
Business
Management belonging to general category
under Advt. no.9/2021 dated 30.12.2021.

iv. To issue any other order of
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deems
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case.

v. To allow the writ petition
throughout cost."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states
that
inadvertently
while
incorporating the amendment as made in
prayer 'ii-a' the advertisement number has
been indicated as '9/2021' rather the same
should be 3 of 2024.

5. The aforesaid statement of learned
counsel for the petitioner is recorded.

6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the
facts of the case are that an advertisement
no.9/2021 dated 30.12.2021 had been
issued by respondent no.2, a copy of which
is Annexure-1 to the petition, inviting
applications for various posts in the
University including the post of Assistant
Professor,
Agriculture
Business
Management. The number of posts were
indicated as three - one for unreserved, one
for OBC and one for SC/ST. As the
petitioner belongs to the General Category
as such he applied for the said post under
the unreserved category.

7. It is contended that a written
examination
was
conducted
by
the
respondents in which the petitioner claims
to have qualified. Thereafter, interview
letter dated 21.11.2022 was issued. The
result had been declared on 11.09.2023.
Incidentally the result has not been annexed
along with the writ petition. It is contended
that the result did not contain the name of
the petitioner rather one Sri Ashutosh
Chaturvedi was selected on the said post.
Even before Sri Chaturvedi could be
appointed, a complaint was made against
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his selection which resulted in his selection
being cancelled. It is contended that
subsequent thereto, instead of respondents
proceeding further with the waiting list, if
any, that may have been prepared in which
the petitioner might have qualified they
have issued an advertisement no.3 of 2024,
a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the
petition, on 04.03.2024 whereby apart from
inviting application on various other posts
the post of Assistant Professor, Agriculture
Business Management has again been
advertised and there are three posts as per
earlier advertisement itself.

8.
Raising
a
challenge
to
the
advertisement dated 04.03.2024 no.3 of
2024 as well as praying for selecting the
petitioner
on
the
post
of
Assistant
Professor,
Agriculture
Business
Management on the basis of the earlier
advertisement no.9 of 2021 the instant
petition has been filed.

9. So far as the prayer for making
selection on the post concerned in terms of
the earlier advertisement no.9 of 2021 the
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that as the selection of the
selected candidate namely Sri Chaturvedi
was itself cancelled by the respondents due
to he being unqualified consequently the
respondents should have activated the
waiting list and in case the petitioner found
place in the said waiting list he should have
been appointed and as such the respondents
have patently erred in law in not firstly
activating the waiting list and secondly not
appointing him from the said waiting list
and have patently erred in law in initially
selecting an unqualified candidate namely
Sri Chaturvedi.

10. Raising a challenge to the
advertisement no.3 of 2024 the contention
is that the respondents have changed the
qualification, so far as it pertains to the post
of
Assistant
Professor,
Agriculture
Business Management for which they are
not possessed of any power to do so. Thus,
it is prayed that the advertisement no.3 of
2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the
petition, be cancelled and the respondents
be required to appoint the petitioner on the
basis of earlier advertisement no.9 of 2021.

11. In this regard, reliance has been
placed on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan
Dash vs. Union of India - (1991) 3 SCC
47.

12. On the other hand, Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, argues that admittedly
subsequent to the advertisement no.9 of
2021 a fresh advertisement no.3 of 2024
has been issued by the respondents and
consequently it is deemed that the earlier
advertisement stands cancelled so far as it
pertains to the post of Assistant Professor,
Agriculture Business Management i.e. the
post to which the petitioner is seeking his
selection/appointment.

13. Further placing reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) itself
Sri Prashant Kumar Singh argues that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a
selected candidate has got no indefeasible
right for being appointed on the post.

14. The contention is that once the
selection of Sri Chaturvedi was itself found
to be not in accordance with law as he was
not qualified on the date of advertisement
consequently the respondents in their
wisdom have deemed it fit to issue a fresh
advertisement inviting fresh applications
11 All. Sachin Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
vide advertisement no.3 of 2024 and once
the petitioner himself does not have any
indefeasible
right
for
appointment
consequently there is no occasion for the
petitioner to seek an appointment in terms
of the earlier advertisement no.9 of 2021
more particularly when it stands superseded
by fresh advertisement no.3 of 2024.

15. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to
4, has specifically referred to the averments
made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter
affidavit to contend that the advertisement
with respect to the post in question was
cancelled even prior to declaration of the
result and a fresh advertisement had been
issued.

16. So far as the advertisement no.3 of
2024 is concerned, Sri Prashant Kumar
Singh argues that the petitioner had not
applied
in
pursuance
to
the
said
advertisement and did not even deem it fit
to challenge the said advertisement within
the last date which was prescribed in the
said advertisement which was 06.04.2024
inasmuch as instant petition has been filed
on 07.08.2024 and thus the petitioner, at
this stage, more particularly when the fresh
selection has proceeded further, would not
have any right of raising a challenge to the
advertisement no.3 of 2024.

17.
Responding
to
the
belated
challenge to the advertisement no.3 of
2024, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the new qualification which has
been prescribed in the advertisement no.3
of 2024 so far as it pertains to the post of
Assistant Professor Agriculture Business
Management does not conform to the
qualification as prescribed by the UGC and
changing of the qualification has not been
approved by the UGC and as such the
petitioner is perfectly within his right to
challenge the advertisement as and when he
deems fit.

18. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the records,
it emerges that the respondents had initially
issued an advertisement no.9 of 2021 dated
30.12.2021 inviting applications to various
posts including the post in question. There
were three posts of which one post was
unreserved. The petitioner finding himself
suitable for applying for an unreserved post
had applied for the said post. He qualified
in the written examination and an interview
letter was also issued to him. Upon
declaration of the result on 11.09.2023 the
name of the petitioner did not find place in
the select list rather the name of one Sri
Ashutosh Chaturvedi found place in the
said select list for the aforesaid post. Even
before Sri Chaturvedi could be appointed
certain irregularities were noted in his
selection inasmuch as Sri Chaturvedi was
not having the qualification prescribed on
the date of the advertisement and as such
his candidature has been cancelled.

19.
Incidentally,
in
the
counter
affidavit which has been filed on behalf of
respondents no.2 to 4 specific averments
have been made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of
the counter affidavit that the result of the
post in question was never declared and the
advertisement itself, so far as it pertained to
the post in question, had been cancelled
prior to declaration of the result and a fresh
advertisement for the said post has been
issued. Incidentally, the averments made in
paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit
though have been denied in paragraphs 6
and 8 of the rejoinder affidavit by the
petitioner yet the petitioner in his wisdom
has chosen not to file the said result and in
absence thereof the Court has no option but
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to believe the version of the respondents
that the result had not been declared.

20.
The
respondents
instead
of
proceeding
further
with
the
said
advertisement, so far as it pertains to the
post in question, deemed it fit to issue a
fresh advertisement no.3 of 2024 calling for
fresh
applications
to
various
posts
including the post in question. Admittedly
the qualification has been changed. The last
date fixed in the advertisement no.3 of
2024 was 06.04.2024. Admittedly the
petitioner has not applied in pursuance to
the said advertisement as he did not find
himself eligible in terms of the said
advertisement as he was not having the
qualification prescribed. A challenge has
only been raised to the advertisement no.3
of 2024 by filing the instant petition which
has been filed on 07.08.2024 i.e. after the
last date fixed for receipt of the said
applications.

21. The first thing which is to be
considered by this Court is as to whether
even a selected candidate has got a right to
the post.

22. The issue stands settled by the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Service Single No.1893 of 2011 in re:
Sanjay Tripathi and another vs. District
Judge, Hardoi, decided on 27.08.2019,
wherein this Court after considering the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) has held
as under:-

"8. Now the question which
arises is as to whether a selected person
has any indefeasible right for appointment?
The issue is no longer res-integra taking
into consideration the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sankarsan Dash (supra) wherein the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has
held as under:-

"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 vs.
Subhash
Chander
Marwaha
(1973)IILLJ266SC, Neelima Shangla vs.
State of Haryana [1986]3SCR785 or
Jatendra Kumar vs. State of Punjab
AIR1984SC1850 ."

9. Likewise, the Apex Court in
the case of Shubhas Chandra (supra) has
held as under:-

10. One fails to see how the
existence of vacancies gives a legal right to
a candidate to be selected for appointment.
The examination is for the purpose of
showing that a particular candidate is
eligible for consideration. The selection for
appointment comes later. It is open then to
the Government to decide how many
11 All. Sachin Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
appointments shall be made. The mere fact
that a candidate's name appears in the list
will not entitle him to a mandamus that he
be
appointed.
Indeed,
if
the
State
Government while making the selection for
appointment had departed from the ranking
given in the list, there would have been a
legitimate grievance on the ground that the
State Government had departed from the
rules in this respect. The true effect of Rule
10 in Part C is that if and when the State
Government propose to make appointments
of
Subordinate
Judges
the
State
Government (i) shall not make such
appointments by travelling outside the list
and (ii) shall make the selection for
appointments strictly in the order the
candidates have been placed in the list
published in the Government Gazette. In
the present case neither of these two
requirements
is
infringed
by
the
Government. They have appointed the first
seven persons in the list as Subordinate
Judges. Apart from these constraints on the
power to make the appointments, Rule 10
does not impose any other constraint.
There is no constraint that the Government
shall
make
an
appointment
of
a
Subordinate Judge either because there are
vacancies or because a list of candidates
has been prepared and is in existence.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of All India SC and ST
Association (supra) has held as under:-

"10. Merely because the names of
the candidates were included in the panel
indicating their provisional selection, they
did not acquire any indefeasible right for
appointment even against the existing
vacancies and the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as
laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court, after referring to earlier cases in
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India.

Para 7 of the said judgment reads
thus :-

"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 vs.
Subhash
Chander
Marwaha
(1973)IILLJ266SC, Neelima Shangla vs.
State of Haryana [1986]3SCR785 or
Jatendra Kumar vs. State of Punjab
AIR1984SC1850 ."

11. Likewise, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Akhilesh V.
(supra) has held as under:-

"4. The short question arising for
consideration in these appeals is whether
mere empanelment can justify a mandamus
to make appointments because vacancies
may exist. Additionally, whether mandamus
can be issued to make appointments from
the panel on vacancies which may have
arisen subsequently due to superannuation
etc. during the life of the rank list. The
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question assumes significance in view of
the stand of the Appellant that it did not
wish to make any further appointments due
to a financial crunch and a skewed bus to
passenger ratio, and for which purpose it
had also appointed a committee to
recommend remedial measures.

5. We have heard the counsel for
the parties and opine that the order of the
High Court is unsustainable. The cadre
strength has rightly been held not to be a
relevant consideration. The High Court has
erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a
total of 97 vacancies, including those
arising subsequently but during the life of
the rank list. Vacancies which may have
arisen subsequently could not be clubbed
with the earlier requisition and necessarily
had to be part of another selection process.
The law stands settled that mere existence
of vacancies or empanelment does not
create
any
indefeasible
right
to
appointment. The employer also has the
discretion not to fill up all requisitioned
vacancies, but which has to be for valid
and germane reasons not afflicted by
arbitrariness. The Appellant contends a
financial crunch along with a skewed
staff/bus ratio which are definitely valid
and genuine grounds for not making
further appointments. The court cannot
substitute its views over that of the
Appellant, much less issue a mandamus
imposing obligations on the Appellant
corporation which it is unable to meet.

6.
Suffice
to
observe
from
Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2016) 6 SCC 532:

12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of
India, (2013) 12 SCC 171, it was held that
(para 10) merely because the name of a
candidate finds place in the select list, it
would
not
give
the
candidate
an
indefeasible right to get an appointment as
well. It is always open to the Government
not to fill up the vacancies, however such
decision should not be arbitrary or
unreasonable. Once the decision is found to
be based on some valid reason, the Court
would not issue any mandamus to the
Government to fill up the vacancies...."

12. Thus, taking into
consideration the aforesaid dictum of law
as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
apparent that selected persons have no
indefeasible right of appointment."

23. Today itself i.e. on 07.11.2024, a
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak
and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and
others - 2024 INSC 847 has concluded in
paragraph 42(6) of the judgment as under:-

"(6) Placement in the select list
gives no indefeasible right to appointment.
The State or its instrumentality for bona
fide reasons may choose not to fill up the
vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the
State
or
its
instrumentality
cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person
within the zone of consideration in the
select list."

24. Thus, from a perusal of the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Sanjay Tripathi (supra) as well as
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra), it clearly emerges that even a
selected candidate has got no right to the
post and that the State or its instrumentality
for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill
up the vacancies.

25. The instant case so far as it
pertains to the petitioner stands on weaker
footing inasmuch as the petitioner was
never declared as a selected candidate
rather the candidature of the candidate
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