# Rubi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-24
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 746 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rubi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45471
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-
Public Interest Litigation-maintainability ofpetitioner
challenge
the
compassionate
appointment of the respondent/Stenographer
at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar-Apex Court
Propounded in a series of Cases that PIL is not
maintainable in service matters. (Para 1 to 24)

B. Whenever any public interest is invoked,
the court must examine the case to ensure
that there is in fact, genuine public interest is
involved. The court must maintain strict
vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of
the process of court. (Para 22)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. List this case in the first week of
December, 2020.
----------
(2020)12ILR A596
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

P.I.L. No. 746 of 2020

Rubi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ali Qambar Zaidi.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-
Public Interest Litigation-maintainability ofpetitioner
challenge
the
compassionate
appointment of the respondent/Stenographer
at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar-Apex Court
Propounded in a series of Cases that PIL is not
maintainable in service matters. (Para 1 to 24)

B. Whenever any public interest is invoked,
the court must examine the case to ensure
that there is in fact, genuine public interest is
involved. The court must maintain strict
vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of
the process of court. (Para 22)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & ors. Vs Jitendra Kumar
Mishra & ors., (1998) 7 SCC 273,

2. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar Haji
Bashir Ahmed & ors, (1976) 1 SCC 671,

3. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349
4. Janata Dal Case (1992) 4 SCC 305 :(1993 )
SCC (Cri) 36

5. Dr. B Singh Vs UOI,(2004) 3 SCC 363,

6. Gurpal Singh Vs St. of Punj. , JT (2005) 5 SC 389,

7. Indian Consumers Welfare Council Vs UOI &
anr. (2005) 3 L. W. 522,

8. N. Veerasamy Vs UOI, (2005) 2 MLJ 564,

9. Neetu Vs St. of Punj., (2007) 10 SCC 614,

10. Seema Dharmdhere, Secy, Mah. Public
Service Commission Vs St. of Mah., (2008) 2
SCC 290,

11. Hari Bansh Lal Vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto &
ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655

12. Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors Vs St. of M.P. &
ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707

13. B. Srinivasa Reddy V. Karnataka Urban
Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees
Association & ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II)

14. Bholanath Mukherjee & ors. Vs Ramakrishna
Mission Vivekananda Centenary College &
ors.,(2011) 5 SCC 464

15. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Mah.
& ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ali Qambar Zaidi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents and perused the material
placed on record.

2. This Public Interest Litigation
(Writ Petition) under Article 226 of the
Constituton of India has been filed by the
petitioner with the following prayers;

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of QUO WARRANTO thereby
12 All. Rubi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
597
declaring the appointment of respondnt
no.5 as null and void and directing the State
to remove respondent no.5 from the office
of
stenographer
at
Zila
Panchayat,
Muzaffarnagar;

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS thereby
directing the State to terminate the services
of respondent no.5 with immediate effect
and
issue
fresh
advertisements
as
prescribed by the relevant service rules;

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS thereby
directing the State to constitute a high level
committee to enquire into the matter of
illegal appointment of respondent no.5 to
the post of stenographer at Zila Panchayat,
Muzaffarnagar;

IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS thereby
directing the State to take appropriate
action, penal or otherwise against such
persons who are found complicit in the
illegal appointment of respondent no.5;

V. Issue such other writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case AND

VI. award cost of the petition to the
petitioner.

3. This Public Interest Litigation
(Writ Petition) has been filed by the
petitioner who is a member of Zila
Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar and was elected
from Khatauli Block. The petitoner made
an averments in the writ petition that being
a public representative , the petitioner is
bound to discharge her duty with utmost
sincerity and vigilance and to put forth any
misdoing or corrupt practice before the
concerned
appropriate
authority.
The
petitioner believes that if on the basis of
material
on
record,
the
appointment
assailed in the present petition is cancelled
by this Hon'ble Court then it would open
way for fresh recruitment which in turn
would benefit bonafide aspirants. He
further submits that by way of present PIL,
the petitioner seeks to highlight complete
disregard to the existing laws, rules and
guidelines with respect to an appointment
made at the office of Zila Panchayat,
Muzaffarnagr. The petitioner seeks to
invite the attention of this Hon'ble Court
towards the appointment of Respondent
NO.5 who, over a period of time, has been
regularized on the permanent post of
stenographer. Not only the existing rules
with respect to appointment on such post
were deliberately flouted by the Zila
Panchayat (respondent No.3) but also the
orders/directions of the State Government
were maliciously interpreted to extend
unjust benefits to respondent No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further made averments in the writ petition
that respondent No.5 Shri Akshay Kumar
Sharma got compassionate appointment as
Grade II clerk on 15.12.1993 at Zila
Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar in furtherance of
order passed the then District Magistrate/
Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha.

5. Further vide order dated 3.12.2002,
the AMA- Zila Panchayat issues an
appointment letter to respondent no.5 at the
post of stenographer on ad-hoc and
temporary basis. No selection committee
was constituted for the purpose of this
appointment, which was made by the order
of
Adhyaksha,
Zila
Panchayat.
This
appointment order was totally contrary to
the directions given by the government on
2.11.2002.

6. Upon perusal of the averments
made in the public interest litigation and
documents appended thereto, the petitioner
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seeks direction declaring the appointment
of respondent no.5 as null and void and
directing the State to remove respondent
no.5 from the office of Stenographer at Zila
Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar.

7. When maintainability of the present
public interest litigation (writ petition), in
service matters, was raised by us no
suitable reply was given by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the
instant PIL was raised by the learned
Standing Counsel and submitted that in
service matter PIL is no longer res-integra,
lacks bonafide and rather it is a proxy
petition.

8. After consideration of the aforesaid
submission of the respondents, we consider
it appropriate to take the question of
maintainability of the PIL (writ petition) as
a preliminary issue before we go to the
merit of the case and, accordingly, the
parties are heard on this preliminary issue.

9. The learned counsel for the
petitioner was not able to give a reasonable
answer to our querries when the Court
made a pointed query as to the availability
of any decision of the Apex Court on the
maintainability of PIL, in service matters,
no such authority is submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner.

10. For adjudicating this issue, we
have to go back in the year 1998. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra and others, 1998 (7) SCC
273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with
an issue, as to whether a Public Interest
Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger,
could be entertained, by the Administrative
Tribunal and held that in service matter PIL
should not be entertained, the inflow of so
called PILs involving service matter
continues unabated in the Courts and
strangely are entertained. After considering
the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs.
Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and
others, (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law
declared in Chandra Kumar vs. Union of
India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
observe in para 18, 19 and 21 as follows:-

18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word
'application' as an application made under
Section 19. The latter Section refers to
'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a
matter before the Tribunal, an application
has to be made and the same can be made
only by a person aggrieved by any order
pertaining to any matter within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have
already seen that the work 'order' has been
defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of
Section 19 so that all matters referred to in
Section 3 (q) as service matters could be
brought before the Tribunal. It in that
context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there
is no doubt that a total stranger to the
concerned
service
cannot
make
an
application before the Tribunal. If public
interest litigations at the instance of
strangers are allowed to be entertained by
the Tribunal the very object of speedy
disposal of service matters would get
defeated.

19. Our attention has been drawn to a
judgement of the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia Versus
State of Orissa 1996. (1) OLR (CSR)-2. The
Tribunal after considering the provisions of
the Act held that a private citizen or a
stranger having no existing right to any
post and not intrinsically concerned with
any service matter is not entitled to
12 All. Rubi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
approach the Tribunal. The following
passage in the judgement is relevant: "....A
reading of the aforesaid provisions would
mean that an application for redressal of
grievances could be filed only by a 'person
aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.

Tribunals
are
constituted
under
Article 323 A of the Constitution of India.
The
above
Article
empowers
the
Parliament to enact law providing for
adjudication or trial by Administrative
Tribunals of disputes and complaints with
respect to recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to public
services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State or any
local or other authority within the territory
of India or under the control of the
Government and such law shall specify the
jurisdiction, powers and authority which
may be exercised by each of the said
Tribunals.
Thus,
it
follows
that
Administrative Tribunals are constituted
for adjudication or trial of the disputes and
complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed
to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction
and powers have been well-defined in the
Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power."
We agree with the above reasoning.

21.In the result, we answer the first
question in the negative and hold that the
Administrative Tribunal constituted under
the Act cannot entertain a public interest
litigation at the instance of a total
stranger.?

11. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State
of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the
Apex Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as
follows:-

"5. It is necessary to take note of the
meaning of the expression public interest
litigation. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary,
Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), public interest is defined
thus:

Public interest.(1) A matter of public
or general interest does not mean that
which is interesting as gratifying curiosity
or a love of information or amusement; but
that in which a class of the community have
a pecuniary interest, or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.

6. In Blacks Law Dictionary (6th
Edn.), public interest is defined as follows:

Public interest. Something in which
the public, the community at large, has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the
interests of the particular localities, which
may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in
affairs
of
local,
State
or
national
Government.?

7. In Janata Dal case (1992 (4) SCC
305 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 36) this Court
considered the scope of public interest
litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment,
after considering what is public interest,
this Court has laid down as follows: (SCC
p. 331, para 53) The expression litigation
means a
legal
action
including all
proceedings therein initiated in a court of
law with the purpose of enforcing a right or
seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the
expression ?PIL? means a legal action
initiated in a court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general
interest in which the public or a class of the
community have pecuniary interest or some
interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected.

8. In para 62 of the said judgment, it
was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.

334) ?Be that as it may, it is needless
to emphasise that the requirement of locus
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
standi of a party to a litigation is
mandatory; because the legal capacity of
the party to any litigation whether in
private or public action in relation to any
specific remedy sought for has to be
primarily ascertained at the threshold.?

9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it
has further been pointed out as follows:
(SCC pp. 345-46) While this Court has laid
down a chain of notable decisions with all
emphasis at their command about the
importance and significance of this newly
developed doctrine of PIL, it has also
hastened to sound a red alert and a note of
severe warning that courts should not
allow its process to be abused by a mere
busybody or a meddlesome interloper or
wayfarer or officious intervener without
any interest or concern except for personal
gain or private profit or other oblique
consideration.

10. In subsequent paras of the said
judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC
p. 348, para 109). It is thus clear that only
a person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL
will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out the tears of
the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, but
not a person for personal gain or private
profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.
Similarly
a
vexatious
petition under the colour of PIL brought
before the court for vindicating any
personal grievance, deserves rejection at
the threshold.

11. It is depressing to note that on
account of such trumpery proceedings
initiated before the courts, innumerable
days are wasted, which time otherwise
could have been spent for the disposal of
cases of the genuine litigants. Though we
spare no efforts in fostering and developing
the laudable concept of PIL and extending
our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy
whose fundamental rights are infringed and
violated
and
whose
grievances
go
unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet
we cannot avoid but express our opinion
that while genuine litigants with legitimate
grievances
relating
to
civil
matters,
persons suffering from undue delay in
service matters? government or private,
persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases
are all standing in a long serpentine queue
for years with the fond hope of getting into
the courts and having their grievances
redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome
interlopers,
wayfarers
or
officious
interveners having absolutely no real
public interest except for personal gain or
private profit either of themselves or as a
proxy of others or for any other extraneous
motivation or for glare of publicity, break
the queue muffling their faces by wearing
the mask of public interest litigation and
get into the courts by filing vexatious and
frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who
have nothing to lose but trying to gain for
nothing and thus criminally waste the
valuable time of the courts and as a result
of which the queue standing outside the
doors of the courts never moves, which
piquant situation creates frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants.

12. Public interest litigation is a
weapon which has to be used with great
care and circumspection and the judiciary
has to be extremely careful to see that
behind the beautiful veil of public interest
an ugly private malice, vested interest
and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is
to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social justice
to the citizens. The attractive brand name
of public interest litigation should not be
allowed to be used for suspicious products
of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal
12 All. Rubi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
601
of genuine public wrong or public injury
and not publicity-oriented or founded on
personal vendetta. As indicated above,
courts must be careful to see that a body of
persons or member of public, who
approaches the court is acting bona fide
and not for personal gain or private motive
or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. The court must not allow its
process
to
be
abused
for
oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the
pastime of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper
motives and try to bargain for a good deal
as well to enrich themselves. Often they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection
at
the
threshold,
and
in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

14. The court has to be satisfied
about: (a) the credentials of the applicant;
(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of
information given by him; and (c) the
information being not vague and indefinite.
The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike a
balance between two conflicting interests:
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in
wild and reckless allegations besmirching
the character of others; and (ii) avoidance
of public mischief and to avoid mischievous
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions. In
such case, however, the court cannot afford
to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful
to see that under the guise of redressing a
public grievance, it does not encroach upon
the sphere reserved by the Constitution to
the executive and the legislature. The court
has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposters and busybodies or meddlesome
interlopers
impersonating
as
public-
spirited holy men. They masquerade as
crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in
the name of pro bono publico, though they
have no interest of the public or even of
their own to protect.

15. Today people rush to courts to file
cases in profusion under this attractive
name of public interest. Self-styled saviours
who have no face or ground in the midst of
public at large, of late, try to use such
litigations to keep themselves busy and
their names in circulation, despite having
really become defunct in actual public life
and try to smear and smirch the solemnity
of court proceedings. They must really
inspire confidence in courts and among the
public, failing which such litigation should
be axed with a heavy hand and dire
consequences.

16. As noted supra, a time has come to
weed out the petitions, which though titled
as public interest litigations are in essence
something else. It is shocking to note that
courts are flooded with a large number of
so-called
public
interest
litigations,
whereas only a minuscule percentage can
legitimately be called as public interest
litigations. Though the parameters of
public
interest
litigation
have
been
indicated by this Court in a large number
of cases, yet unmindful of the real
intentions and objectives, courts at times
are entertaining such petitions and wasting
valuable judicial time which, as noted
above, could be otherwise utilized for
disposal of genuine cases. Though in
Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held
that in service matters PILs should not be
entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs
involving
service
matters
continues
unabated in the courts and strangely are
entertained. The least the High Courts
could do is to throw them out on the basis
of the said decision. This tendency is being
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
slowly permitted to percolate for setting in
motion
criminal
law
jurisdiction,
often
unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and
giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The
other interesting aspect is that in the PILs,
official documents are being annexed without
even indicating as to how the petitioner came to
possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an
interesting answer was given as to its
possession. It was stated that a packet was lying
on the road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the
official documents. Apart from the sinister
manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real
brain or force behind such cases would get
exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide
venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are
taken to explain possession, the court should do
well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to
impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives
impression about oblique motives involved, and
in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the
petitioner has not even a remote link with the
issues involved, it becomes imperative for the
court to lift the veil and uncover the real
purpose of the petition and the real person
behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to
filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss
them with costs as aforestated so that the
message goes in the right direction that
petitions filed with oblique motive do not have
the approval of the courts."

12. In Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India,
(2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
decided the case on the same lines and held that
PIL is not maintainable in service matters.

13. In Gurpal Singh vs. State of
Punjab, JT 2005 (5) SC 389, the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
held
that
PIL
is
not
maintainable in service matters.

14. In Indian Consumers Welfare
Council vs. Union of India and another,
reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the
abovesaid Council, filed a public interest
writ petition, challenging a notification,
issued by the 2nd respondent therein, by
which, applications were invited, from
degree holders, with degree in education,
and consequently, prayed for a direction to
the respondent therein, to appoint only
those teachers, who were trained in
teaching primary sections, for handling
classes from 1st to 7th standards, to the
post
of
Secondary
Grade
Teachers.
Following the decision in Gopal Singh vs.
State of Punjab, reported in 2005 J.T. [5]
SC 389, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered as
follows:-

"This is a public interest litigation in
respect of a service matter. It has been
repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that
no public interest litigation lies in service
matters, the last decision being Gopal
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005 J.T. [5] SC
389. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed."

15. In N.Veerasamy vs. Union of
India, reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 564,
while
considering
a
public
interest
litigation filed by a treasurer of a political
party, praying to take action again
Mrs.Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the fifth
respondent therein, under the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1969, for allegedly making allegations
against a leader of a political party,
following the above judgments of the
Honourable
Apex
Court,
a
Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court held as
follows:-

"It is settled law that no writ in the
form of public interest litigation will lie
under Article 226 of the Constitution in
service matters. The petitioner has no locus
12 All. Rubi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
603
standi to file the public interest litigation.
The extraordinary powers of the High
Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in
matters of this kind is required to be used
sparingly and only in extraordinary cases."
"The
service
matters
are
essentially
between the employer and the employee
and it would be for the State to take action
under the Service Rules and there is no
question of any public interest involved in
such matters."

"The
petition
is
not
only
not
maintainable either in law of facts but also
would amount to abuse of the process of
Court."

16.
In
B.Srinivasa
Reddy
vs.
Karnataka
Urban
Water
Supply
and
Drainage Board Employees Association
and others, 2006 (11) SCC 731, at
paragraph 61, the Apex Court held that in
service matters only the non appointees can
assail the legality of the appointment
procedure.

17. In Neetu vs. State of Punjab,
reported in 2007 (10) SCC 614, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-

"The scope of entertaining a petition
styled as a public interest litigation, locus
standi of the petitioner particularly in
matters involving service of an employee
has been examined by this court in various
cases.? Referring to the decisions in
Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra and others, reported in
1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar
Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004
(3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court
held that PIL in service matters has been
held as not maintainable."

18.

In
Seema
Dharmdhere,
Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service
Commission vs. State of Maharashtra,
2008 (2) SCC 290, the Apex Court restated
that PIL is not maintainable in service
matters.

19. In Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar
Prasad Mahto and others, 2010 (9) SCC
655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik
Leader, a writ petition was filed before the
High Court, challenging the appointment of
Mr.Hari Bansh Lal, who was appointed, as
the Chairman of Jharkand State Electricity
Board. The High Court declared that his
appointment was not only arbitrary, but
also,
contemptuous,
and
ultimately,
quashed his appointment, which gave rise
to an appeal, before the Apex Court.
Addressing the issue, as to whether a public
interest writ petition, is maintainable in
service matters, following the earlier
decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others
vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others,
reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok
Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in
(2004 (3) SCC 349) and other decisions,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:- PIL in service matters:

"11)About
maintainability
of
the
Public Interest Litigation in service matters
except for a writ of quo warranto, there are
series of decisions of this Court laying
down the principles to be followed. It is not
seriously contended that the matter in issue
is not a service matter. In fact, such
objection was not raised and agitated
before the High Court. Even otherwise, in
view of the fact that the appellant herein
was initially appointed and served in the
State Electricity Board as a Member in
terms of Section 5(4) and from among the
Members of the Board, considering the
qualifications specified in sub-section (4),
the State Government, after getting a report
from the vigilance department, appointed
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him as Chairman of the Board, it is
impermissible to claim that the issue
cannot
be
agitated
under
service
jurisprudence.

12)We have already pointed out that
the person who approached the High Court
by way of a Public Interest Litigation is not
a competitor or eligible to be considered as
a Member or Chairman of the Board but
according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik
Leader. Either before the High Court or in
this Court, he has not placed any material
or highlighted on what way he is suitable
and eligible for that post.

..............

The
same
principles
have
been
reiterated in the subsequent decisions,
namely, Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India
and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal
Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others,
(2005) 5 SCC 136.

15)The above principles make it clear
that except for a writ of quo warranto,
Public
Interest
Litigation
is
not
maintainable in service matters."

20. In Girjesh Shrivastava and others
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others,
reported
in
2010
(10)
SCC
707,
appointments were challenged in PIL, on
the grounds of contravention of rules,
regarding reservation of ex- servicemen.
The High Court allowed the writ petition
and ordered cancellation of appointments,
and dismissed the review petitions also.
While considering the issue, as to whether
the matter ought to have been taken, as
service dispute and not PIL, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after considering a catena
of decisions, at paragraphs 14 to 19 has
held as follows:-

"14. However, the main argument by
the appellants against entertaining WP (C)
1520/2001 and WP (C) 63/2002 is on the
ground that a PIL in a service matter is not
maintainable. This Court is of the opinion
that there is considerable merit in that
contention.

15. It is common ground that dispute
in this case is over selection and
appointment which is a service matter.

16. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan
Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273, a
three judge Bench please to hold a PIL is
not maintainable in service matters. This
Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J.
explained the purpose of administrative
tribunals created under Article 323-A in
the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction
of the High Courts under Articles 226 and
227. This Court held "if public interest
litigations at the instance of strangers are
allowed
to
be
entertained
by
the
(Administrative) Tribunal, the very object
of speedy disposal of service matters would
get defeated" (para 18). Same reasoning
applies here as a Public Interest Litigation
has been filed when the entire dispute
relates to selection and appointment.

17.
In
B.
Srinivasa
Reddy
v.
Karnataka
Urban
Water
Supply
&
Drainage Board Employees' Association
and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731
(II), this Court held that in service matters
only the non-appointees can assail the
legality of the appointment procedure (See
para 61, page 755 of the report).

18. This view was very strongly
expressed by this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590, by
pointing out that despite the decision in
Duryodhan Sahu (supra), PILs in service
matters `continue unabated'. This Court
opined that High Courts should `throw out'
such petitions in view of the decision in
12 All. Rubi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
605
Duryodhan Sahu (supra) (Para 16, page
596).

19.
Same
principles
have
been
reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State
of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, at
page 358 (Para 16)"

In Soma Velandi vs. Dr.Anthony
Elangovan, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 8,
following Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab,
reported in JT 2005 (5) SC 389, a Hon'ble
Division Bench held that PIL is not
maintainable in service matters."

21. In Bholanath Mukherjee and
others
vs.
Ramakrishna
Mission
Vivekananda
Centenary
College
and
others, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 464,
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a
direction to set aside the appointment of the
3rd respondent therein, as Principal, was
sought for, as the 3rd respondent was
junior, to them, and did not have the
requisite qualification. Reiterating the legal
position that PIL is not maintainable in
service matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court
declined to entertain the challenge to the
notices issued to Ramakrishna Mission to
reconstitute the committees.

22. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, 2013 (4) SCC 465. At paragraphs
14 and 15, the Apex Court, observed as
follows:-

"14.This
Court
has
consistently
cautioned the courts against entertaining
public
interest
litigation
filed
by
unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do
not hesitate to abuse the process of the
court. The right of effective access to
justice, which has emerged with the new
social rights regime, must be used to serve
basic human rights, which purport to
guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a
workable remedy within the framework of
the judicial system must be provided.
Whenever any public interest is invoked,
the court must examine the case to ensure
that there is in fact, genuine public interest
involved. The court must maintain strict
vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of
the process of court and that, ?ordinarily
meddlesome bystanders are not granted a
Visa. Many societal pollutants create new
problems of non-redressed grievances, and
the court should make an earnest endeavour
to take up those cases, where the subjective
purpose of the lis justifies the need for it.

15. Even as regards the filing of a
Public Interest Litigation, this Court has
consistently held that such a course of
action is not permissible so far as service
matters
are
concerned.
(Vide:
Dr.
Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj
Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of
Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)"

23. At this juncture, we deem it is
necessary to extract Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, which reads as
follows:-

"141. Law declared by Supreme Court
to be binding on all courts.-- The law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts within the territory of
India."

24. In view of the above, when Public
Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) is not
maintainable in service matters and time
and again been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in series of decisions as
referred above, the present Public Interest
Litigation
(writ
petition)
is
not
maintainable in law and the same is
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed accordingly. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2020)12ILR A606
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

P.I.L. Civil No. 19497 of 2020

Narendra Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Kant.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rishabh Kapoor

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226PIL-maintainability of-the firm in question
was earlier inspected by the inspecting
agency and was declared in Category 'C'-
since the purchase from the firm would be
taken subsequent to its certification by the
inspecting agency-it is certainly not a
petition on behalf of disadvantageous group
of persons rather one on behalf of a
competitor-a dispute between two warring
groups is in the realm of a private dispute
and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public
Interest Litigation- the petition is not
maintainable in public interest at the behest
of the petitioner-the petitioner has no
credentials to move PIL.(Para 2 to 23)

B. The petitioner claims to be a Social
worker, but in order to substantiate the
nature of the social work he is doing or
seeks to do, he has not disclosed any
experience that makes him suitable or
perfect and no document in proof has
been furnished. The person filing PIL
should precisely and specifically, apart
from other things, state his credentials
and the public cause he is seeking to
espouse. These are essential elements
because the relaxation provided from the
strict rule of locus standi lately came to be
misused by unscrupulous persons seeking
cheap publicity. (Para 5 to 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of U.K. Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal ,(2010)
3 SCC 402

2. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
Vs C.K. Ranjan, (2003) 7 SCC 546

3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs UOI, (1984) 2 SCR 67

4. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr., Vs UOI &
ors., (1989) AIR SC 549

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri H. N. Singh, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shobhit Kant,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. P.
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri Rishab Kapoor, learned
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate by
profession and has preferred this petition in
Public Interest. In paragraph - 4 of the
petition, he has stated that he is also
involved in social work, but he has not
disclosed his credentials or the nature of
social work so far done by him.

3. The petitioner in Public Interest
seeks quashing of letter dated 18.9.2020 of
the Chief Engineer (Purchase) of U.P. Jal
Nigam requesting M/s Crown Agents
(India) Pvt. Ltd. to inspect M/s. Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata and issuance of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and