Court No. 8 WPA (P) No. 299 of 2025

14.08.2025 FEKU CHOWDHURY Item No. 50 PA (Chamber) Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Mr. Barun Kumar Samanta, … for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Sumita Shaw, Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, …..….. for the State.

Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Sukumar Sarkar, …….. for the Intervenor.

1. In this PIL, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent Sub-Division Officer to show cause why he has issued certain caste certificates to certain candidates. It is further prayed that steps be directed to be taken against those candidates who got their jobs by using fake/forged/fabricated/manufactured SC/ST certificate. The prayer is opposed by the other side by contending that this Court on 31.07.2025 directed the petitioner to argue on the question of maintainability of PIL. The matter is essentially the service matter. So far verification of caste certificate is concerned, a separate mechanism is prescribed for the same and PIL cannot be entertained.

2. No other point is pressed.

3. We have heard the parties at length on these aspects. 4. We find substance in the argument, learned counsel for the respondents that so far verification of caste is concerned, an institutional mechanism is in place in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SC 241. Admittedly, in the State of West Bengal, a caste verification committee has been constituted which has prerogative to examine the caste is status. Thus, no roving enquiry can be done by this Court in exercise of this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The Apex Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) vs.

Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 opined that the PIL in service matters is not maintainable. The said judgment of the Supreme Court was consistently followed in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349; B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363; Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136; Kushum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180; Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto (2010) 9 SCC 655; Grijesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 707; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465, State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 SCC 1; Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shriramjbapu Fate (2020) 18 SCC 673 and State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma (2022) 19 SCC 626.

6. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered some of aforesaid judgments in the case of Baidyanath Saha vs. Union of India & Ors. WPA (P) 92 of 2021 decided on 11.04.2022 and opined as under:

“2. Having examined the petition, we find that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials except by stating that he has no direct pecuniary interest in the matter and that he is a socially committed law abiding citizen. It is the settled position of law that in service matters, PIL is not maintainable. The persons, if any, affected by the advertisement can always file the appropriate petition or approach the appropriate forum questioning the same. In the matter of Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in MANU/SC/0888/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 707 where in a Public Interest Litigation, allegation of non-issuance of proper advertisement for reservation for ex-servicemen was made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of the legal position in respect of maintainability of the PIL in a service dispute had held that:

“14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) No. 1520 of 2001 and WP (C) No. 63 of 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. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter