/to .; .a IN THE HIGH COURT 0F SIKKIM AT GANGTOK (auil JurisdichorL) Writ Petition (C) No. 16 of 2008 M anoranjan Dixit, S/o Shri Udhai Nath Dixt, PGT Political Science, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Mangalbaria, West Sikkim. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Sikkin, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Siklin, Gangtok. 2. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Sikkin, Gangtok, East Sikkin. 3. She P.S. Saha, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Sikk+.in . ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. B. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.K. marka, Advocate. For the respondents : ~ Mr. Karma Thinlay, Government Advocate for the official respondents. Date of Hearing : 30.07.2009 Date of Judgment : 30.07.2009 Present: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. .USTICE AF'TAB H. SAIKIA •HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SUBBA, JUDGE Sdihia, CU JUDGMENT A"D OREER OEL Heard Mr. a. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.K. Kharka, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Karma Thinlay, 1eamed State Counsel, Sikkin for the official respondents. At the very outset, on a plain reading of the instant application, it is found that this application, thouch registered as a writ petition, has not been filed under appropriate provision of law, that is, this petition oucht to have been fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a relief whatsoever in the form of issuance of wit of or in the nature of Cedoro7+ Mlczrrdcz77urs, etc. etc. Rather, ex facie, it appears that it is filed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, by means of this application the petitioner, being a Post-Graduate teacher of Political Science, presently working in the Government Senior Secondary School at Mangalbaria under West District, has alleged that despite being qualified and eligible for promotion/appointment as a Principal of a Senior Secondary School in the State of Sikkin, he has been ddiberately and illegally deprived of getting the benefit given to the respondent No. 3 who has been allowed to act as Co-ordinator on \\.- ® t promotion to the post of Prfucipal, althoust the petitioner is similarly situated with the respondent No. 3 and accordingly he has sought the reliefs with the following prayers: "A. A rule nisi calling upon the respondent No. 2 to furnish the entire documents of selection process by which annexure - E was notified. 8. A rule nisi calling upon the respondent No. 2 to furlrish the entire records of selection and posting of respondent No. 3 in the post of Principal and to furnish the entire personal records and Armual Service Report of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other incumbents who had been promoted vide annexure - E. C. Issue a writ/order or direction in the, nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or directions quashing the promotion order vide -exure - E. D. Issue a wit/order/direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate wit/order/direction quashing the promotion order given to respondent No. 3 and also incumbents who were promoted vide annexure - E. E. A writ/order/direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 or each of the respondents to consider the case at par with respondent No. 3 and other incumbents promoted vide annexure- E. F. Issue a wit/order/direction declaring the promotion order of respondent No. 3 and other incumbents who were also promoted vide annexure - E to be nun and void. G. Cost of the proceedings. H. Pass such further order/wit/direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. " )`+.` a On scrupulous scanning of the averments made in this application as well as the prayer as quoted hereinabove, it would go to show that the petitioner has basically challenged the office order dated 30.01.2008 i.e. Annexure - E as indicated in the above prayer whereby on the basis of interview conducted on llth, 12th, 13th and 16th April 2007, as many as 8 Post-Graduate teachers were selected as Principal in Senior Secondary Schools against the existing vacancies with immediate effect. Amazingly, although the petitioner has challenged the said ofrice order, for the reasons best known to him, all those 8 persons selected for the post of Principal, being the necessary parties, have not been arrayed as Respondents in this application. 5. At this stage, Mr. Karma Thinlay, the learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner, being eligible for selection as a Principal, took the interview on two occasions for such selection. Initially in the year 2003, he appeared for such selection but was found to be unsuccessful. Again he took the interview conducted on llth, 12th, 13th and 16th April, 2007 for selection as Principal and that time also he could not make it. That being the position, according to the State counsel, the petitioner being tmsuccessful, cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned office order. pr` e That apart, it is furt:her contended by the learned State Counsel that the contentions and averments made in this application as well as the submissions and arguments placed on record on behalf of the petitioner would candidly indicate that the petitioner primarily has no grievance against the respondent No. 3 and the same is evident from the fact that he has challenged the. Office Order dated 30.01.2008 i.e. Annexure -a to this application, as reflected in the prayer made to the application itself, without impleading all those candidates who have been selected/promoted to the post of Principal by the impugned Office Order. Under such circumstances, this application may be held as not maintalnaple for non-joinder of parties. 7. Assuming the petitioner has made a challenge to the promotion/selection of the respondent No. 3, such challenge cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 was promoted long back in the year 2004 as Principal along with 11 others vide Office Order dated 13.02.2004 (Annexure -J at page 66 of the Rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner). Admittedly, the said Office Order at no point of time has been assailed by the petitioner. 8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the official respondents and on meticulous study of the entire pleadings, we do find that this application is not ;L+ •r.-I::: t maintainable in absence of all those 8 (eight) selected candidates named in the impugned office order dated 30.01.2008 (Annemre - E to this application) as the petitioner has challenged the selection of those selected candidates as Principals, without impleading them, being the necessary parties, in the present application. 9. Consequently this application stands dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. rsr/jks jEL chftstLce 0