High Court

appointments were made. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. However, there are other issues which will also be examined in the interest of justice.

6. Specific statutory authorities and procedures are thereunder to make appointments. Authorities to oversee the process of appointments.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not connected with the process of appointments nor is he an authority competent to take cognizance of any irregularities in the appointments or functioning or disciplinary matters relating to Nagar Panchayat officials. The petitioner has not established his locus standi to challenge the appointments made in the Nagar Panchayat, Sarai Akil, Kaushambi.

8. The service conditions of government servants are governed and regulated by service rules holding the field. The service rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of law. 3 The service rules of employees ensure that there is transparency in the functioning of the government departments and accountability in the conduct of government officials. The service rules also insulate the government employees from extraneous influences and pressure which may impede faithful discharge of government duties. The service rules are bulwark of independence of government servants and enable them to function without fear of any outside interference.

9. Entertaining complaints from the outsiders who are busybodies and interlopers will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government. Such action will adversely impact the morale of the government servants and will be detrimental to the efficiency of the Government. Persons who set up complaints with malafide motives of harassing and blackmailing government servant have to be deterred and the Government employees should be safeguarded. Manner of discharge of duties by public servants are wholly beyond the scope of the rights of such complainants and entirely in the prerogative of the State Government.

10. Further it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. It would be apposite to fortify the narrative with cases in point.

11. This Court in Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others1 relied on good authority to uphold the distinction between an aggrieved party and an 1 2016 (6) ADJ 122 4 annoyed party held as under: "13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, (1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court held: "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."

12. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others2 thus: "2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas -corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantages position, unable to approach the court for relief."

13. Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others3, the Supreme Court

appointments were made. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. However, there are other issues which will also be examined in the interest of justice.

6. Specific statutory authorities and procedures are thereunder to make appointments. Authorities to oversee the process of appointments.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not connected with the process of appointments nor is he an authority competent to take cognizance of any irregularities in the appointments or functioning or disciplinary matters relating to Nagar Panchayat officials. The petitioner has not established his locus standi to challenge the appointments made in the Nagar Panchayat, Sarai Akil, Kaushambi.

8. The service conditions of government servants are governed and regulated by service rules holding the field. The service rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of law. 3 The service rules of employees ensure that there is transparency in the functioning of the government departments and accountability in the conduct of government officials. The service rules also insulate the government employees from extraneous influences and pressure which may impede faithful discharge of government duties. The service rules are bulwark of independence of government servants and enable them to function without fear of any outside interference.

9. Entertaining complaints from the outsiders who are busybodies and interlopers will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government. Such action will adversely impact the morale of the government servants and will be detrimental to the efficiency of the Government. Persons who set up complaints with malafide motives of harassing and blackmailing government servant have to be deterred and the Government employees should be safeguarded. Manner of discharge of duties by public servants are wholly beyond the scope of the rights of such complainants and entirely in the prerogative of the State Government.

10. Further it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. It would be apposite to fortify the narrative with cases in point.

11. This Court in Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others1 relied on good authority to uphold the distinction between an aggrieved party and an 1 2016 (6) ADJ 122 4 annoyed party held as under: "13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, (1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court held: "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."

12. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others2 thus: "2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas -corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantages position, unable to approach the court for relief."

13. Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others3, the Supreme Court