Facts
The petitioner challenged an order dated 08.09.2026 posting respondent No. 7, a Lecturer (L.B.), as Block Resources Coordinator at Samagra Shiksha, Kharsia, on deputation.
Source reference: para. 1–5He contended that the posting contravened the applicable guidelines dated 03.09.2015 and 23.02.2017, and sought quashing of the order and a fresh appointment in accordance with the guidelines.
Source reference: para. 1–5The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the posting was made in administrative exigency and that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Source reference: para. 1–5The Court considered whether the petition was maintainable where the petitioner had sought no relief for himself and had shown no infringement of a personal or individual right
Source reference: para. 1–5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge respondent No. 7’s posting when he had not demonstrated infringement of any personal or individual right
Source reference: para. 5–82. Whether the writ petition was maintainable at the petitioner’s instance
Source reference: para. 5, 8–9Law Applied
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person seeking relief must ordinarily establish a personal or individual right in the subject matter, including that they have been prejudicially affected by the impugned act or omission.
Source reference: para. 6–7A person has no locus standi where the impugned order does not personally affect them, invade their fundamental rights directly or substantially, place those rights in imminent danger, or violate an acquired interest contrary to applicable rules.
Source reference: para. 6–7The Court relied on *Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others*, (2001) 4 SCC 734, for these principles
Source reference: para. 6–7Reasoning
The petitioner challenged respondent No. 7’s posting and sought its quashing and a fresh appointment, but did not seek relief for himself or demonstrate that the posting infringed any personal or individual right.
Source reference: para. 5–8Applying the locus standi principles, the Court held that the petitioner had not shown the prejudice or rights-based interest required to invoke Article 226 in this case.
Source reference: para. 5–8The Court therefore did not determine the merits of the alleged breach of the guidelines
Source reference: para. 5–8Holding
The Court held that the petition was not maintainable at the petitioner’s instance because he had neither sought relief for himself nor established infringement of a personal or individual right.
It dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage.
Source reference: para. 8–9Original Court PDF
KHAGESH MODI JAISWALvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
