S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6073/2007. [Gopal Hateela Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] Date of Order :: 30th October 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.K.S.Gill, for the petitioner. … In sum and substance, by way of this writ petition, the petitioner said to be the President of Rajasthan State Employees Union, District Nagaur seeks to submit that there had been some doubts and disputes in relation to the verification of past services of the respondent No.8, working as Pump Driver-II in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Merta City; that on 30.09.2005 the Union represented by the petitioner made a complaint (Annex.2) in that regard; that the Superintending Engineer constituted a Committee to enquire into the matter on 06.07.2006 (Annex.6) and composition of Committee was changed by the order dated 31.07.2006 (Annex.8); that the Committee was supposed to submit its report within a month but has been sitting tight over the matter and proceedings have not been brought to finality despite the petitioner serving a notice on 04.04.2007 (Annex.11). The petitioner has alleged that inaction on the part of the respondents is entirely illegal and improper and is actuated by collusion between the parties 1 for defeating the majesty of law; and has sought the relief that the Committee constituted under the orders dated 06.07.2006 and 31.07.2006 ( Annexures 6 & 8) be directed to complete the enquiry and to submit its report within one month. While considering the matter for motion-admission, learned counsel for the petitioner was posed the questions about competence of this petition where no personal right of the petitioner is involved; and on locus standi of the petitioner to seek any direction against such Committee constituted by the Department. Learned counsel responded with the submissions that the authorities are not expected to hold the papers and not to proceed further and that the petitioner has a legal right to know what the Committee was doing and to ensure that the proceedings are brought to finality. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition does not merit admission. Even taking the case of the petitioner on its face value that some complaint was made by him and/or his Union in relation to the service record of the respondent No.8 and that the Department has constituted a Committee to enquire into the matter and even assuming that the said Committee is yet 2 to submit its report, this Court is unable to find involved any personal legal right of the petitioner wherefor a writ is required to be issued. Even if assumed to be a bona fide complainant, the petitioner does not have any such legal right that further proceedings on his complaint be forced through a petition for writ. As to whether any enquiry is needed in relation to the service record of respondent No.8, as to whether a Committee for that purpose is requisite, as to what ought to be the terms of reference to such Committee and how to regulate its proceedings are all the matters for the Department concerned to deal with. The petitioner, merely for being a complainant does not acquire any such extra legal right to chase such complaint through the process of this Court in its extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction. Noteworthy it is that the petitioner has not stated infringement of any of his legal right and has obviously no personal interest in the matter. The petitioner has suggested the specious ground that illegal grant of selection scale to the respondent No.8 might lead to loss of public fund. For the facts stated and the grounds suggested, this Court does not consider it appropriate to extend a locus standi to the petitioner so as to maintain a writ petition in the manner and form it has been presented. 3 It may be pointed out that the contents of the notice dated 04.04.2007 (Annex.11) served on behalf of the petitioner indicate and suggest that the petitioner is aware of an appeal being pending before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, likely to be related with the dispute concerning service conditions of the respondent No.8. However, the petitioner has chosen not to state complete facts in that regard in the writ petition. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is firmly of opinion that the petition of the present nature that could only be said to be an unwarranted litigation deserves to be rejected outright. The petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK 4