<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Patna High Court's order dismissing a plea questioning the validity of appointment of the executive secretary of the Bihar Legislative Council.</p>.<p>In its April 28 order, the high court had noted that without impleading the person appointed as the executive secretary, the validity of his appointment has been questioned by way of a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).</p>.<p>"For non-joinder of necessary and proper party, this court would find the writ petition to be not maintainable. This court would also observe that no issue of public interest involving the rights or privileges of marginalized/weaker/inarticulate sections of the society have been raised in the instant proceedings," the high court had said while dismissing the plea.</p>.Supreme Court notice to UP govt on Muzaffarnagar student slapping case.<p>The petition challenging the high court order came up for hearing before the apex court on Wednesday.</p>.<p> A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it will not interfere with the high court order only for the reason that one-year contractual period of the appointee has almost come to an end.</p>.<p>"Needless to say if there are any further extensions in the tenure, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the high court by a proper petition," the bench said.</p>.<p>Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Vivek Raj, said the high court had dismissed the plea only on the ground of non-impleadment of the person whose appointment was challenged.</p>.<p>Arguing that it was a contractual tenure, he claimed the person appointed did not fulfil the qualification for the post.</p>.<p>"All that we are saying is your lordships may allow us to go back to the high court by impleading him," Bhushan said.</p>.<p>The bench said it would see what survives in the matter.</p>.<p>It said the person was appointed in September last year for a one-year period.</p>.<p>"We are not inclined to interfere only for the reason that the one year contractual period has almost come to an end," the bench said.</p>.<p>"We do appreciate the submissions of counsel for the petitioner that if a quo warranto (a writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office is held) petition is filed, the entitlement of the person to hold the post as per the norms and qualification are required to be examined," the bench said. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Patna High Court's order dismissing a plea questioning the validity of appointment of the executive secretary of the Bihar Legislative Council.</p>.<p>In its April 28 order, the high court had noted that without impleading the person appointed as the executive secretary, the validity of his appointment has been questioned by way of a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).</p>.<p>"For non-joinder of necessary and proper party, this court would find the writ petition to be not maintainable. This court would also observe that no issue of public interest involving the rights or privileges of marginalized/weaker/inarticulate sections of the society have been raised in the instant proceedings," the high court had said while dismissing the plea.</p>.Supreme Court notice to UP govt on Muzaffarnagar student slapping case.<p>The petition challenging the high court order came up for hearing before the apex court on Wednesday.</p>.<p> A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it will not interfere with the high court order only for the reason that one-year contractual period of the appointee has almost come to an end.</p>.<p>"Needless to say if there are any further extensions in the tenure, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the high court by a proper petition," the bench said.</p>.<p>Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Vivek Raj, said the high court had dismissed the plea only on the ground of non-impleadment of the person whose appointment was challenged.</p>.<p>Arguing that it was a contractual tenure, he claimed the person appointed did not fulfil the qualification for the post.</p>.<p>"All that we are saying is your lordships may allow us to go back to the high court by impleading him," Bhushan said.</p>.<p>The bench said it would see what survives in the matter.</p>.<p>It said the person was appointed in September last year for a one-year period.</p>.<p>"We are not inclined to interfere only for the reason that the one year contractual period has almost come to an end," the bench said.</p>.<p>"We do appreciate the submissions of counsel for the petitioner that if a quo warranto (a writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office is held) petition is filed, the entitlement of the person to hold the post as per the norms and qualification are required to be examined," the bench said. </p>