Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, appearing in person, to quash an order, whereby his contractual appointment was extended, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that this case was an example of defective writ petition wherein the petitioner was acting against his own interest by challenging selection of other persons without even impleading them. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the petitioner and stated that often party in person filed defective writ petition since they were unaware of law and they refused to take services of an Amicus Curaie.
The Court highlighted that “Court is repeatedly facing difficulty in dealing cases of petitioners appearing in person since their writ petitions invariably remains defective. Even averments made therein are not proper, since they are unaware of law and procedure and normally they refuse to take services of an Amicus Curaie.”.
Further, the Court specified that the interest of justice suffers due to lack of proper assistance even though the Court gives patient hearings. The Court opined that it was necessary to observe that there was no bar for petitioner in person to file a petition and to argue their case and in some cases, they argued better than any qualified Advocate, but it was an exception.
The Court observed that the present case was an example of such a defective writ petition as on one hand petitioner wanted to quash an order, whereby his contractual appointment was extended, thus acting against his own interest and on other hand after participating in a selection process when he remained unsuccessful, has challenged selection of other persons without even impleading them. Thus, the writ petition was defective, and the petitioner included the Selection Committee as one of the respondents, which was also a defect.
Further, the Court stated that the present petition was pending since 2024 and at the outset when this Court requested the petitioner appearing in person to appoint an Amicus Curaie, he bluntly refused.
Considering the petitioner’s reference to a government order, the Court held that it would not help him since it had no statutory backup otherwise a contractual appointee had no indefeasible right for extension specifically when regular appointments were already made.
Hence, the Court dismissed the petition and held that it cannot help such petitioner appearing in person on the basis of defective writ petition, making prayers contrary to law. Further, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the petitioner to be deposited by him in person in the District Legal Services Authority.
[Deepak Chowrasia v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7614, decided on 15-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Shambhavi Tiwari, C.S.C. and Rohit Pandey