IMPORTANT POINT
Public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters; only aggrieved parties can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. Heard Shri Rishabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5, Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The petitioner is not a teacher in the school nor is he a government servant. The petitioner has made various complaints against the respondent No. 6 who is the headmistress of the institution. The petitioner claims that his wife who is a teacher in the school was being tormented and treated unfairly by the respondent No. 6 who is the headmistress of the institution. The wife of the petitioner also made several complaints before the competent authorities against the allegedly malafide action taken by the respondent No. 6 against her. The petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to initiate and conclude an inquiry against the respondent No. 6.

3. The question arises as to whether the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be entertained.

4. The service conditions of government servants are governed and regulated by service rules holding the field. The service rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of law. The service rules of employees ensure that there is transparency in the functioning of the government departments and accountability in the conduct of government officials. The service rules also insulate the government employees from extraneous influences and pressure which may impede faithful discharge of government duties. The service rules are bulwark of independence of government servants and enable them to function without fear of any outside interference. Entertaining complaints from the outsiders who are busybodies and interlopers will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government. Such action will adversely impact the morale of the government servants and will be detrimental to their efficiency. Persons who seek to set up complaints with malafide motives of harassing government servant have to be deterred by providing for adequate safeguards in law. Manner of discharge of duties by public servants are wholly beyond the scope of the rights of such complainants and entirely in the prerogative of the State Government.

5. Further it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. It would be apposite to fortify the narrative with cases in point.

6. This Court in Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (6) ADJ 122, relied on good authority to uphold the distinction between an aggrieved party and an annoyed party held as under:

“13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court held:

“A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.”

7. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (4) SCC 734 thus:

“2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas -corpus or quo warranto or filed in public intere