AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of one Jharkhand Vyakhayata Patrata Sangh, Ranchi through its President Dr. Sunil Kumar Kamal, Ranchi claiming itself to be an Association formed by the citizens of India. They represent BET, NET and JET Passers and M. Phil and Ph.D. degree holders of different faculties of the Universities of Jharkhand belonging to poorest of the poor, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Dalit, Maha Dalit and Backward Classes.
Prayer has been made for direction to all the Universities under the State of Jharkhand to make necessary arrangements by suitable process as per act/statue/rules and regulations for appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in different colleges and P.G. Departments of the Universities from BET, NET and JET Passers and M. Phil and Ph.D. degree holders including the members of BET, NET Association and that of the petitioner''s Association. Other reliefs are also of consequential in the nature seeking urgent consideration in view of the fact that several such persons might have become over age and be rendered ineligible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted at the outset that petitioner''s association is not registered Association under any Act such as Societies Registration Act. However, he submits that earlier Jharkhand BET-NET Association had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1059 of 2006 to take steps for appointment of Lecturers in different Constituent Colleges of the Universities, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.06.2006 with certain observations and directions. Therefore, present reliefs sought on behalf of the Sangh is also maintainable.
Learned counsel for the State is present. No instructions have however been furnished as to submit their reply.
On perusal of the relevant material pleadings on record along with supporting documents, it is apparent that petitioner does not have locus-standi to raise a cause allegedly on behalf of these persons. The petitioner''s association admittedly is also not registered under any Act.
The affidavit by the deponent also does not show the relevant requirement of pursuing the case in a representative capacity on behalf of all those persons. Requirements of Order I, Rule 8 is also not fulfilled as is apparent from the affidavit of the deponent to justify that he is pursuing the case in a representative capacity. In absence of any such material proof, petitioner cannot justify locus-standi to raise such a cause on behalf of such a large diaspora of persons. In the circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that petitioner has locus-standi to maintain this writ petition. From perusal of judgment at Annexure-5, it does not appear that question of legality of the said association was raised or considered. Moreover, petitioner''s association is totally distinct from the petitioner in the W.P.(S) No. 1059 of 2006, Annexure-5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.