Arun Panwar v. Delhi Police And ORS.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.09.2018 + W.P.(C) 9800/2018 & CM APPLs.38187-88/2018 ARUN PANWAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sahil Sharma, Adv.

versus DELHI POLICE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-1 & 4.

Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Aakash Varma, Mr. Deepak Doyal, Ms. Yantakshikaa Sharma, Advs. for R-2/UOI.

Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Mr. Prang Newmai & Mrs. Slomita Rai, Advs. for University of Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO RAJENDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) 1.

Arun Panwar, the petitioner herein, who is a resident of 146/1, 4th floor, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi challenges the appointment of respondent No.5 - Shri Sandeep Panwar, also a resident of 146-A, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi in this Public Interest Litigation by contending that the Graduation in law obtained by respondent No.5 from Delhi University and his obtaining certain diploma certificates from the aforesaid University are false and fabricated documents, his appointment to the Government service i.e. in the Police Department is not legal, this writ petition has been filed in the form of W.P.(C) 9800/2018 Page 1 of 2

a Public Interest Litigation. Seeking a mandate to respondent No.1 to terminate the service of respondent No.5, to conduct a departmental enquiry against him and to find out as to how he obtained Graduation in law from Delhi University while he was in service inter alia contending that the appointment/continuation of respondent No.5 in Government service is illegal, this petition has been filed in public interest. 2.

Apart from the fact that the dispute in question is a matter pertaining to appointment of respondent No.5 in the department in question which was in the year 2008, now at the instance of the present petitioner, the prayer made in the petition cannot be considered, particularly, when on going through the pleadings we find that the petition is not in public interest. Petitioner resides in the same building/locality where the respondent No.5 is residing and the petition seems to have been filed only to ventilate personal grudge of the petitioner against respondent No.5 and to settle scores with him for reasons which are not available on record. 3.

In a Public Interest Litigation exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to go into the issue in question. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2018/kks W.P.(C) 9800/2018 Page 2 of 2