Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 1: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the petition seeking the quashment of 4% reservation provided to “Pahari speaking people.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by Mohammad Anwar Chowdhary seeking quashment S.O (Statutory Order) No.127 dated 20.04.2020 by virtue of which the amendments have been made in the relevant rules of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005, wherein 4% reservation has been provided to “Pahari Speaking People” in respect of each service, class category, grade in the services and post under the State/Union Territory as per amended Rules 2005.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing Advocate SM Choudhary for the petitioner, ASGI Vishal Sharma for the Central Government and Suraj Singh for the UT administration, observed that it is clear that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy etc., are unable to approach the Court and a person, who has no personal agenda, approaches the Court, then the Court may examine the issue. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that legal injury is threatened and the affected class of persons is unable to approach the Court on account of their poverty etc.
Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that the petitioners have not, at all, disclosed as to how they are aggrieved of the impugned Statutory Order and they have not stated as to which of their legal rights have been affected by the impugned action of the respondents. The petitioners, therefore, do not qualify as “aggrieved persons” who can maintain a writ of Certiorari or a writ of Mandamus against the respondents. They have not even disclosed their credentials. It is not discernible as to which class of persons the petitioners are representing. They have not even averred in the petition that they are filing the petition in public interest. Therefore, the instant petition cannot even be treated as a public interest petition.
The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, either relate to public interest petitions or the same relate to cases where a writ of Quo-Warranto has been sought. In such matters, as already noticed, locus standi of the petition becomes immaterial, as such, the ratio laid down in these cases is of no help to the case of the petitioners.
In the instant case, neither the petitioners have shown as to how they are aggrieved of the impugned Statutory Order, nor they have shown as to which of their legal or constitutional right has been infringed by issuance of the impugned Statutory Order. As already noted, the petitioners do not even claim to represent any class of persons, nor do they allege that the petition is being filed in public interest.
With these observations, High Court found that the writ petition is found to be not maintainable and is dismissed, as such. It’s however, open to the petitioners to file a public interest petition in respect of the grievances projected by them in the instant writ petition after adhering to the procedure laid down for the said purpose. (JNF) |
