Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ku. Manda Jayaprada, filed a writ petition challenging an advertisement dated 23.11.1994 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur for appointing untrained Primary Teachers, and also challenged the appointments made pursuant to that advertisement. The petitioner had earlier applied under a first advertisement dated 6.10.1993 which required D.Ed. qualification, but she did not possess it. Despite that, she was temporarily appointed as an untrained teacher on 17.11.1993. Subsequently, a second advertisement was issued specifically for untrained teachers (without D.Ed.). The petitioner applied under this second advertisement but was not selected. She then approached the High Court contending that the second advertisement was illegal. The court held that since the petitioner applied under both advertisements and was not selected, she has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement or the appointments. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Untrained Teachers - Locus Standi - Petitioner applied under both advertisements but was not selected - Held that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement or appointments as she was not selected and has no vested right (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who applied under both advertisements but was not selected, has any locus standi to challenge the advertisement and appointments made thereunder.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of untrained teachers
- Advertisement for selection
- Challenge to selection process
- Locus standi
- No vested right to appointment
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 132
Writ Petition No. 821/1995
P. B. Majmudar, P. B. Varale
P. D. Meghe (for petitioner), Gopal Mishra (for respondent no.1), P D Kothari (AGP for respondent no.2)
Ku. Manda Jayaprada D/o John
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur; The Collector and President, District Selection Committee, Chandrapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging advertisement for appointment of untrained primary teachers and appointments made thereunder.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of advertisement dated 23.11.1994 and appointments made pursuant to it.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was not selected under the second advertisement and challenged its validity.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the advertisement and appointments when she was not selected.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the second advertisement was illegal.
Respondents contended that petitioner has no locus standi as she was not selected.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who applies under an advertisement but is not selected has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement or the appointments made thereunder, as they have no vested right to appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement issued by the Department dated 23.11.1994 for the purpose of appointing untrained Primary Teachers in the Education Department of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has also applied on the basis of second advertisement but could not get herself selected.
In our view, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement or the appointments made thereunder.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition in 1995 challenging advertisement dated 23.11.1994 and appointments. The petition was heard and dismissed on 14.02.2012.
