Chandra Kant Guatam vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill-advised writ petition. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

A- A writ, order or direction in the nature of appropriate calling for the record in relation to the selection process for the post of Junior engineer (Control and Instrumentation) in relation to the control No. 107189, Roll No. 33408802, for General Category held in pursuant of Advertisement No. U02\\ UPRVUSA\\2008 i.e. annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.

B- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to keep one post vacant subject to decision of the instant writ petition, in pursuant of Advertisement No. U02\\ UPRVUSA\\2008 i.e. annexure no. 1 to this writ petition in relation to the control No. 107189, Roll No. 33408802, for General Category.

However, the Court fails to understand as to what for the petitioner intended to call for record and a direction to keep a vacancy unfilled. Though in the pleadings some vague allegations of mala fide against Energy Minister has been levelled but none has been impleaded eo nomine, hence plea of mala fide cannot be entertained by this Court. It is well established that in order to level plea of mala fide a person against whom mala fide is pleaded must be impleaded by name.

In State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, of the judgment, the Apex Court held:

It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.

In AIR 1996 SC 326, J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under:

Further in the absence of impleadment of the...the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.

In All India State Bank Officers'' Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , in para 23, the Hon''ble Apex Court has said where a person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under:

The person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.

In Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), :

That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations.

In the circumstances, the plea of mala fide cannot be entertained by this Court in absence of any person impleaded as eo nomine.

Even the relief sought in petion is thoroughly vague and no reason has been assigned as to why this Court call for record or direct the respondents to keep one post unfilled. The petitioner, in fact, is trying to go for roving and fishing inquiry in the selection in which he has been found unsuccessful. Dismissed.