SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.S. SARON & DARSHAN SINGH, JJ.
S.S. Sharma – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others – Respondents
CWP No. 1670 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate

In service matters, a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.

Headnote:

PIL - Quashing of Promotion Orders - Punjab Corporation Act, 1976, and Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Amendment Rules, 2015 - CWP No. 8083 of 1998 - R.K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1769 - P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy & others, (2011) 5 SCC 484 - Partap Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 484 - Madan Lal v. High Court of J&K, (2014) 15 SCC 308 - Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349 - B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136 - Quashing of Promotion Orders - The petitioner's lack of locus standi to file the present petition in the nature of a PIL was established. The court emphasized that a PIL by a person not concerned with the service is not maintainable. The court cited various cases to support the principle that in service matters, a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. The present petition was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking quashing of promotion and transfer orders in violation of the Punjab Corporation Act, 1976, and Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Amendment Rules, 2015. The petitioner claimed to be a social worker and sought intervention of the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner lacked locus standi to file the present petition in the nature of a PIL. The court emphasized that a PIL by a person not concerned with the service is not maintainable. The court cited various cases to support the principle that in service matters, a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. The present petition was dismissed.

Issues: Locus standi of the petitioner to file a PIL in service matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A PIL by a person not concerned with the service is not maintainable. Various cases were cited to support the principle that in service matters, a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.

Final Decision: The present petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SARON, J.

1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely S.S. Sharma, in the nature of a public interest litigation ('PIL'-for short) seeking quashing of the order dated 02.01.2017 (Annexure P-1 colly), whereby the Superintendents Grade-2, working in the Municipal Councils have been promoted as Secretaries and their posting orders have been made by the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government (respondent No. 1). A further prayer has been made for staying the said order (Annexure P-1) and also for staying the order dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-2) promoting Junior Engineers (Civil) and other draftsmen working in Municipal Councils have been promoted as Assistant Corporation Engineers during the pendency of the petition. According to the petitioner, the said promotions and transfers in terms of order dated 02.01.2017 (Annexure P-1 colly) have been made in total violation of the Punjab Corporation Act, 1976, and Punjab Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Amendment Rules, 2015. It is further submitted that the same are also in violation of the decision of this Court in CWP No. 8083 of 1998.

2. The petitioner states that he is a social worker and has been doing many activities for the betterment of the society, therefore, he seeks intervention of this Court by filing the petition.

3. The Registry of this Court on the petition that has been filed raised several objections, which include:

(1) Is the present Public Interest Litigation falling under the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ('Rules' for short)?

(2) How the present writ (PIL) is maintainable under the 'Rules'?

(3) Writ petition be filed according to the directions passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled Ajaib Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and others, 2013 (4) PLR 367, which is available on the High Court Website.

(4) Petitioner has to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit.

(5) The Registration Certificate of the society should be filed with the petition.

(6) Income proof of the petitioner should be filed.

(7) Has the petitioner approached the concerned authorities with a representation for redressal of his grievances?

(8) Documentary proof be also attached regarding objection No. to 7 mentioned above, with proper reply.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the same submitted that:

(1) The 'Rules' have been complied with.

(2) The present petition is maintainable as per the 'Rules'.

(3) Directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court have been complied with.

(4) Petitioner has specifically disclosed his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the present case by way of an affidavit.

(5) The present petition is filed by an individual.

(6) Income proof of the petitioner has been filed.

(7) Petitioner has approached the respondents by way of filing representation.

(8) Documents have been annexed as Annexure P-5.

5. According to the 'Rules', as per Clause 7, the Registry of the High Court is entitled to verify the antecedents of the persons, Societies or Associations, who invoke jurisdiction of this Court on the cause of public interest. Besides, where the Registry has any doubt on such antecedents, an office note to the said effect is to be made and the Registry is not to accept the petitions, except the petitions which are received by post.

6. In Ajaib Singh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court emphasized that the petitioner invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court has to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression “specifically disclose his credentials”, it was said, must, naturally, imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has be












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top