2025:HHC:1105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10187 of 2024 Decided on: 02.01.2025 Dr. Daaman Thakur and others … Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No. 2A-UOI. : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 5, 6 and 9 to 12. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by granting the following reliefs: (i) That the appointment of the private respondents dated 28- 5-2021 and 7-9-2021 (Annexure P-3-Colly) may kindly be held illegal, vague, unwarranted, irrational, unreasonable, unjustified, invalid, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be quashed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1105 and set aside being ineligible and unqualified for the post of Sr Resident/ Tutor Specialists in the department of Microbiology. (ii) That the extension being granted may not be granted to the private respondents and the respondent may kindly be directed to remove the private respondent form these tenure posts. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to advertise the tenure posts of Senor Resident/ Tutor Specialist in the Department of Microbiology in accordance with the provisions of the R&P Rules forthwith considering the post of Senior Resident / Tutor Specialists.” 2. The petitioners, 12 in number, have approached this Court on the plea that at the time of the filing the writ petition, majority of them had completed their MBBS, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 5 had completed their Post Graduation (MD) in the Department of Microbiology. Their contention is that in the year 2021, Directorate of Medical Education appointed the private respondents as Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists on tenure basis for a period of three years in terms of orders dated 28.05.2021 and 07.09.2021. According to the petitioners, appointment of the private respondents is bad as they were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for appointment against the tenure basis posts of Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the appointment of 3 2025:HHC:1105 the private respondents made vide orders dated 28.05.2021 and 07.09.2021 appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-3(colly.). 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith 4. This writ petition assailing the appointment of the private respondents made in the year 2021, has been filed in this Court on 07.09.2024, i.e. after three years as from the date of engagement of the private respondents. 5. The petitioners did not participate in the process of appointment of Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists in the Department of Microbiology in the year 2021 as none of them was eligible to participate. In other words, they are strangers to the selection process. Their contention is that because now some of the petitioners have become eligible for being appointed against the post of Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists and some of them shall be gaining eligibility soon after completing their Post Graduation, therefore, appointment of the private respondents be quashed and petitioners be considered for appointment against the resultant vacant posts of Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists. No other point was argued. 6. This Court is of the considered view that filing of this writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 4 2025:HHC:1105 7. The petitioners are strangers to the process in terms whereof the private respondents were recruited and none from amongst those who participated in the process was aggrieved by their appointment as Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists when they were appointed in the year 2021. Filing of this writ petition after a period of more than three years as from the date of appointment of the private respondents without any locus, is nothing but abuse of process of law. 8. Simply because some of the petitioners may now have gained eligibility for being considered for appointment against the post of Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists and some of them may gain eligibility soon, this does not confers any right upon them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and seek quashing of appointment of the private respondents which took place as far back as in May and September, 2021. 9. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by any busy body. Either the jurisdiction can be invoked by a ‘person aggrieved’ or by a petitioner who is pro bono. This writ petition has not been filed by the petitioners as pro bono. Therefore, the issue is as to whether the petitioners fall under the category of ‘person aggrieved’ so as to file the writ petition seeking the reliefs as prayed for or not? 5 2025:HHC:1105 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Thammanna vs. K. Veera Reddy and others, (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 62, has been pleased to hold that although the meaning of expression ‘person aggrieved’ may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally a ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. 11. Similarly, earlier in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 671, a five Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that expression ‘aggrieved person denotes an elastic and to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. English Courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression “aggrieved person”, however, some general tests have been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus-standi or 'standing' to invoke jurisdiction of the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an applicant should 6 2025:HHC:1105 ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto, this rule is relaxed or modified and as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus-standi in the matter. 12. These judgments were subsequently referred by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 273, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act to adjudicate service matters cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger. 13. Coming back to the facts of this case, as has been observed by me hereinabove, the private respondents were appointed as Senior Residents/Tutor Specialists on tenure basis in a recruitment process which was undertaken by the Department concerned in the year 2021. They were appointed as such in the months of May and September, 2021. Neither the petitioners participated in the said process nor any of them was eligible to do so which could not be disputed even by learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. Therefore, as the 7 2025:HHC:1105 petitioners were not aspirants for the posts concerned when the private respondents were appointed against the posts concerned, which are tenure posts, obviously, the petitioners cannot be termed as ‘aggrieved persons’ because the appointment of the private respondents infringed no legal right of the petitioners when recruitment took place. 14. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Y.R. Pathak and others and other connected matter, (1998(2) Shim. L.C. 157, while dealing with a preposition as to ‘whether a person who had not participated in the process had locus to assail the same’, answered the same in the negative by holding that such person had no locus to maintain the case. 15. Therefore, as in the present case, the petitioners were not even eligible to participate in the recruitment process for Senior Residents/Tutor Specialist in the year 2021, when the private respondents were appointed against said posts, they have no locus to file and maintain this writ petition for the reason that neither they can be termed as ‘aggrieved persons’ nor they have any locus to assail the appointment of the private respondents. Accordingly, as filing of this writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the same is accordingly dismissed 8 2025:HHC:1105 with cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by the petitioners to the private respondents within a period of four weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 02, 2025 (narender)