ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the impugned communication dated 21/08/2023 issued by the respondent no. 02. iii To kindly direct the respondents to cancel the promotion of the private respondent on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 2005 and the post of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f. 2010 as the same is unconstitutional, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. iv. To kindly direct the respondents to not proceed with the further promotion of the private respondent to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 2020. v. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner association in support of the representations of the Chief Engineers and Superintendent Engineers. vi. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered association working for the welfare and service interests of engineers employed in various departments of the State of Chhattisgarh, and is therefore competent to invoke the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India on behalf of its members, who, according to the petitioner, have been bypassed and prejudiced by the respondent authorities by extending undue, arbitrary and illegal benefits to the private respondent. The private respondent, Shri Nagesh Kumar Jayant, was initially appointed in the year 1992 as an Assistant Engineer under the Scheduled Caste category in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and, upon reorganisation of the State, came to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh along with the concerned department and cadre; however, it is alleged that since the inception of his service career he has been embroiled in serious disputes with the department and has faced multiple departmental enquiries, some of which culminated in final orders, even after his allocation to Chhattisgarh. In the year 2003, ad-hoc promotions were granted owing to non-finalisation of promotion rules, and thereafter a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting dated 20.12.2005 was convened for confirmation/regularisation of ad-hoc promotions from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer, wherein, as per the roster, 12 posts were available for the unreserved category, 4 for Scheduled Tribe and 2 for Scheduled Caste; notwithstanding this, the private respondent’s name appeared at the third position in the Scheduled Caste select list, despite only two vacancies being available and despite the pendency of departmental enquiries against him, as reflected in the departmental records. The alleged irregularity continued, and in the subsequent DPC meeting dated 27.12.2010 for promotion from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer, the sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the private respondent due to pending enquiries. Subsequently, by order dated 22.02.2021, the sealed cover was opened and the private respondent was found eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, though, according to the petitioner, he had not been lawfully promoted to the feeder cadre of Executive Engineer following due process, and the private respondent thereafter sought review of the DPC for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from the year 2020. Several senior engineers submitted representations opposing such review, and even the Engineer-in-Chief opined vide letter dated 23.09.2021 that the initial promotion of the private respondent from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer was illegal and arbitrary. The matter was thereafter referred to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, which, by its opinion dated 12.07.2022, observed that the procedure adopted in the DPC dated 20.12.2005 appeared to be erroneous and recommended convening of a review DPC. Consequently, a review DPC was convened on 11.07.2023; however, instead of rectifying the alleged illegality, promotions were granted in excess of the available vacancies by introducing a new justification of a probable vacancy, which, according to the petitioner, finds no mention in the original DPC proceedings of 20.12.2005. Ultimately, the respondent authorities issued the impugned communication rejecting the representations submitted by the members of the petitioner association, reiterating the same reasoning of a probable vacancy, which action is assailed as illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to the service rights of the engineers represented by the petitioner association. 3. Ultimately, the respondent authorities issued the impugned communication rejecting the representations submitted by the members of the petitioner association, reiterating the same reasoning of a probable vacancy, which action is assailed as illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to the service rights of the engineers represented by the petitioner association. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondent authorities is vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality and colourable exercise of power, inasmuch as the respondents have failed to rectify the fundamental illegality committed by promoting 19 candidates against only 18 available vacancies, which clearly demonstrates a predetermined and adamant approach to illegally accommodate and promote the private respondent. It is contended that the respondents gravely erred in considering the case of the private respondent for promotion despite the admitted pendency of departmental enquiries against him, and even assuming, though not admitting, that his case could be considered, the mandatory sealed cover procedure ought to have been strictly followed, which has not been done. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have mechanically and arbitrarily rejected the detailed representations submitted by the members of the petitioner association, including senior officers such as Chief Engineers and Superintending Engineers, solely to perpetuate the earlier illegality and to shield their own mistakes. It is urged that the private respondent could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the year 2010, as his very promotion to the feeder cadre of Executive Engineer in the year 2005 was erroneous, illegal and void ab initio, and any subsequent promotion based on such an illegal foundation is equally unsustainable in law. Learned counsel submits that the so-called justification of a “probable vacancy” is wholly alien to the statutory scheme and cannot form a valid basis for promotion, being contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, as any vacancy, even if it subsequently arises, is required to be filled strictly in accordance with the reservation roster and cannot be arbitrarily earmarked for a particular category or individual. It is further submitted that the minutes of the DPC meeting dated 20.12.2005 are conspicuously silent regarding any probable vacancy, and the unexplained inclusion of the private respondent’s name in the select list, despite the absence of recommendation by the DPC, renders the promotion not only illegal but a constitutional fraud on the system. It is further submitted that the minutes of the DPC meeting dated 20.12.2005 are conspicuously silent regarding any probable vacancy, and the unexplained inclusion of the private respondent’s name in the select list, despite the absence of recommendation by the DPC, renders the promotion not only illegal but a constitutional fraud on the system. Learned counsel also contends that the impugned communication rejecting the representations has been issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind, ignoring the serious objections raised by senior members of the petitioner association regarding the authority and legality of the posting and promotion of the private respondent. Lastly, it is submitted that the private respondent is continuing to reap undue benefits from the persistent mistakes of the respondent authorities by once again seeking promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from the year 2020, whereas it is a settled principle of law that an illegality, once noticed, must be corrected and cannot be allowed to be perpetuated to the prejudice of others. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the entire challenge raised by the petitioner is misconceived, factually incorrect and legally untenable, and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the petitioner has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that only two vacancies under the Scheduled Caste category were available at the time of convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 2005 and that consideration of 19 candidates against 18 posts was per se illegal. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has selectively relied upon self-serving documents while deliberately suppressing the complete and correct factual matrix relevant for adjudication of the issue. Inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, learned counsel submits that the statutory scheme clearly mandates that the number of vacancies for promotion during a particular year, defined as the period from 1 st January to 31 st December, is to be determined by taking into account not only the existing vacancies but also the anticipated vacancies arising on account of retirement and promotions to higher cadres during the same year, subject to reservation being worked out in accordance with the roster maintained under Rule 9. It is submitted that the promotion of the private respondent is squarely covered under the said statutory provision and has been granted strictly in consonance therewith. Learned State counsel further submits that though initially two posts under the Scheduled Caste category were available at the time of convening of the DPC on 27.12.2005, during the same calendar year one additional vacancy under the Scheduled Caste category arose on account of promotion of Shri P.K. Janvade, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, to the post of Superintending Engineer pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, and he was accordingly promoted vide order dated 30.12.2005. Consequently, the anticipated vacancy under the Scheduled Caste category was rightly taken into consideration by the DPC in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 2003, and the private respondent, having been found fit and suitable, was legally recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that there is neither any illegality nor any procedural infirmity in the promotion granted to the private respondent, and the impugned action is fully supported by statutory rules and settled principles of service jurisprudence. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and substance, be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record 6. The present writ petition has been filed by the Chhattisgarh Engineers Welfare Association seeking, inter alia, quashment of the impugned communication dated 21.08.2023, cancellation of the promotion granted to the private respondent on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the year 2005 and Superintendent Engineer with effect from the year 2010, and a further direction restraining the respondents from considering the private respondent for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner association has advanced elaborate submissions assailing the action of the respondent authorities on various grounds, including alleged excess promotions, pendency of departmental enquiries, violation of promotion rules and arbitrary rejection of representations made by senior engineers. However, before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the maintainability of the writ petition itself. 8. However, before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the maintainability of the writ petition itself. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner before this Court is not an individual employee claiming infringement of any personal or vested service right, but an association espousing a generalized grievance against the promotion of the private respondent. The reliefs sought in the petition essentially pertain to the challenge to the promotion granted to respondent No.5 on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the year 2005 and consequential promotions thereafter. No individual member of the petitioner association, whose seniority, promotion, pay, status or service conditions are alleged to have been adversely affected by the impugned action, has approached this Court in his personal capacity. There is no pleading or material on record to demonstrate that the legal or fundamental right of any specific engineer has been infringed or that any identifiable individual has suffered a direct civil consequence warranting judicial review. 9. In the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed , reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 has held that a person who is not directly affected and has no legal right infringed cannot maintain a writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced below for ready reference : “37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) “person aggrieved”; (ii) “stranger”; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.” 10. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India , reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568 in stronger terms stated as under : “If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him.” 11. Similarly, in the matter of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that only an aggrieved person can challenge an action; strangers cannot question legality unless a legal right is affected and has held as under : “17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.” 12. It is well settled that in service matters, ordinarily, only an aggrieved person, whose legal or statutory right has been infringed, has the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An association may maintain a writ petition only where it is able to demonstrate that the collective or individual rights of its members have been directly affected and that such members could themselves have maintained the action. 13. In the present case, the petitioner association has not shown that any specific member has been superseded, denied promotion or otherwise prejudiced by the promotion of the private respondent. The challenge raised is in the nature of questioning the correctness and legality of promotions granted decades ago, without any contemporaneous assertion of an individual right or grievance. 13. In the present case, the petitioner association has not shown that any specific member has been superseded, denied promotion or otherwise prejudiced by the promotion of the private respondent. The challenge raised is in the nature of questioning the correctness and legality of promotions granted decades ago, without any contemporaneous assertion of an individual right or grievance. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has made several grounds challenging the action of the respondents and the promotions granted to the private respondent, this Court finds substance in the preliminary objection that the petitioner association lacks locus standi to maintain the present petition. The association, through its Chairman, has sought to challenge the promotion of respondent No.5 granted as far back as the year 2005, without any individual engineer coming forward to assert that his or her right has been infringed. No individual has approached this Court to state that he was entitled to promotion in place of the private respondent or that his seniority or service prospects have been adversely affected. In the absence of any demonstrated infringement of an individual right, the petition essentially seeks an abstract judicial review of administrative actions, which is impermissible in service jurisprudence. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Chhattisgarh Engineers Welfare Association, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not have the requisite locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No.5 or to seek quashment of the impugned communication dated 21.08.2023. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, without entering into the merits of the controversy raised by the parties. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner association has no locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No.5, as no individual right is shown to have been affected and no individual aggrieved person has approached this Court. No order as to costs.