IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPPIL NO.135 OF 2009 Mahendra Singh ..…..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents Dated: November 18, 2009 Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. (Oral) Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Noliyal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Nautiyal, learned counsel for the University/respondent no.3 and Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. The petitioner claims himself to be a social worker and Ex-Pradhan of Village Rohalki Dayalpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar and has filed the present writ petition in public interest praying for the quashing of the selection procedure conducted by the Committee of Management, K.L.D.A.V., P.G. College, Roorkee for appointments of Lecturers and Principals of the College. The ground alleged for invoking the writ petition is that the procedure adopted is in violation of the rules and regulations and that ineligible persons have been appointed. The petitioner contends that by such appointments, the fate of the students would be jeopardized. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the Court is of the opinion that no public 2 interest is involved whereby the Court should interfere in a petition filed in public interest. The present petition appears to be more in personal interest rather than in public interest. If the procedure adopted by the Committee of Management is illegal or is against the rules and regulations, it is open to the aggrieved persons namely the candidates to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. We find from the record that appointments have already been made and no prayer has been made for the quashing of the appointments. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The relief claimed by the petitioner is patently misconceived. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University. We find that the Vice Chancellor has not been arrayed as a party. Consequently we cannot issue any direction to the Vice Chancellor to decide the representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) 18.11.2009 RG