IMPORTANT POINT
Public Interest Litigations cannot be entertained in service matters, except for writs of quo warranto, to prevent misuse of judicial resources.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Bahri, C.J.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for records, and to quash the impugned advertisement dated 22.11.2019, and the entire selection process. The other prayer is to initiate a detailed and proper enquiry, through an independent agency, against the respondents.

2. After notice of this Writ Petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 & 5. The main objection taken in the said counter affidavit is that this PIL is not maintainable, as it is a service matter. In this regard, they have referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters, except by way of writ of quo warranto, for which appointment must be shown to be contrary to statutory provisions. In paragraph nos. 13 to 15, it has been observed as under :-

“13. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held:

“18. ... 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.” In para 21, this Court reiterated as under:

“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.

14. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, this Court held thus:

"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 where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called 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 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 this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of 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. 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. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. 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."

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.”

3. Recently, in the case of Divya Rajesh Hagaragi v. State of Karnataka and others, W.P. No. 12388 of 2020