Practice & Procedure – Writ petition by party-in-person – Defective pleadings – Court’s limitations Petitioner appearing in person filed a defective writ petition: prayers self-contradictory, necessary parties not impleaded and even an improper party (“Selection Committee”) arrayed as respondent. Court notes repeated difficulty in dealing with petitions by parties in person who are unaware of law and procedure and often decline assistance of amicus curiae; despite patient hearing, absence of proper pleadings and assistance hampers cause of justice and limits the Court’s ability to grant relief. (Paras 2–3, 5–6)

A. Practice & Procedure – Writ petition by party-in-person – Defective pleadings – Court’s limitations

Petitioner appearing in person filed a defective writ petition: prayers self-contradictory, necessary parties not impleaded and even an improper party (“Selection Committee”) arrayed as respondent. Court notes repeated difficulty in dealing with petitions by parties in person who are unaware of law and procedure and often decline assistance of amicus curiae; despite patient hearing, absence of proper pleadings and assistance hampers cause of justice and limits the Court’s ability to grant relief.
(Paras 2–3, 5–6)

B. Service law – Contractual employment – No right to extension – Challenge to order extending own contract misconceived

Petitioner sought quashing of the very order by which his contractual appointment had been extended, thereby acting against his own interest. Held, a contractual appointee has no indefeasible right to extension, especially when regular appointments have already been made through proper recruitment. Mere reference to a Government Order with no statutory backing does not confer any enforceable right.
(Paras 5, 7–8)

C. Service law – Selection process – Challenge to selection – Non-joinder of selected candidates – Writ not maintainable

After participating in a selection process and remaining unsuccessful, petitioner sought to challenge the selection of other persons without impleading the selected candidates. Held, such a writ petition is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties and cannot be entertained.
(Para 5)

D. Writ jurisdiction – Pleadings full of citations but lacking factual foundation – No relief

Court observes that “reference of many judgments in writ petition does not make a case better, if facts are against”. Citation of case law cannot cure fundamentally defective facts, prayers or pleadings.
(Para 9)

E. Costs – Frivolous / defective writ by party-in-person – Imposition of costs

Finding that the writ petition was defective, prayers contrary to law and petitioner refused to avail assistance of amicus curiae, Court declined interference and dismissed the writ petition with costs of ₹5,000, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Kanpur Nagar.
(Para 10)