1. The sixth respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 15 October 2014, seeking a mandamus (i) for cancellation of the appointment of the appellant made on a compassionate basis on 20 April 2005; and (ii) a direction for the disposal of a representation submitted by the sixth respondent. The appellant was impleaded as the fifth respondent to the writ proceedings. The writ petition states that the father of the appellant who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Janta Inter College, Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar died on 20 July 2004 in harness and after his death, the appellant claimed compassionate appointment. The District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar accorded his approval on 20 April 2005. The case of the sixth respondent in his writ petition was that when the employee died, his widow, who is the mother of the appellant, was working as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School and hence the appellant was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. The sixth respondent sought to explain his locus for filing writ proceedings by stating that he is a patron member of the society, namely the Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Janta Inter College, Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar, which runs the College. The learned Single Judge noted that the only prayer of the sixth respondent was for a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision on his representation to which the learned Standing Counsel had no objection. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of without notice to the appellant by directing the DIOS to examine the representation of the sixth respondent and to examine the validity of the appointment of the appellant in accordance with law, preferably within three months. As a result of the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the appointment of the appellant which had taken place as far back as in April 2005, would be at large to be inquired into and examined by the DIOS in a writ petition which was filed in October 2014. The sixth respondent stated that he had obtained information in regard to the employment of the mother of the appellant only when he applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, prior to which he was unaware of the facts. The basic issue is whether the sixth respondent had locus, even assuming that he is a patron member of the society which runs the Inter College to challenge the appointment of the appellant. Plainly, the answer to that must be in the negative. The Committee of Management of an educational institution is the appointing authority. Even if, as was stated in the writ petition, the College is under the control and management of an Administrator, that would give no right to a patron member to file a writ petition in order to question a compassionate appointment, which was granted, as in the present case, a decade ago in 2005. The sixth respondent has not asserted any interest of his own that would lead him to file a writ petition. The sixth respondent sought a facially innocuous order, seeking the disposal of his representation to which the Standing Counsel had no objection before the learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, such an order can wreak havoc in the life of a third party, who has no notice of the proceedings. As the facts of this case itself would indicate the order would have the effect of placing in uncertainty, the appointment of the appellant which was made in 2005, at the behest of a busybody, who has no locus to institute the proceedings. This is not to indicate that the State or its authorities are debarred from inquiring into the facts of an appointment, if it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. However, we are emphatically of the view that the process ought not to be allowed to be set in motion at the behest of a third party, who has no locus or interest of his own and who seeks to utilize the judicial process for such purposes.
Orders for the disposal of representations are increasingly being sought in writ petitions before this Court. Such orders are often invited without notice to the affected party on the ostensible ground that ''only'' a disposal of a representation is sought and the administrative authority will hear all parties. This is liable to result in serious consequences. Settled rights are unsettled. Administrative authorities assume jurisdiction over matters in which they have no authority as if the Court has clothed them with jurisdiction and authority. Unscrupulous litigants are increasingly resorting to such a stratagem hoping to find allies in willing public officials who would lend them a helping hand. These tendencies must be curbed and Courts must be circumspect in passing orders for disposal of representations. Though the relief sought may seemingly be innocuous, it is misused to pursue extraneous purposes.
2. The writ petition which was filed by the sixth respondent was thus clearly not maintainable and the only order, in our view, which can be passed, is to dismiss the writ petition both on the ground of the absence of locus on the part of the sixth respondent and the gross and unexplained delay in filing the writ proceedings. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 January 2015. The writ petition (Writ-A No. 68146 of 2014) filed by the sixth respondent shall, in consequence, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
