Court No. 8 WPA (P) No. 268 of 2024

19.08.2025 IA NO: CAN 1 OF 2025 Item No. 25 PA (Chamber) MD. KALIM ASHRAF & ORS.

Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Md. Abdur Rakib, Mr. Isteyak Ahmed, Mr. Mojahid Mehedi, Mr. Sk. Nasim, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar, … for the Petitioners.

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mullick, Mr. Sayan Ganguly, ..….. for the State.

Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, ….. for the Indian Nursing Council.

1. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for following principal relief:

“(b) A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent No. 1 to 3 and/or their agents and/or associates and/or subordinates to set aside and/or cancel the Gazatte Notification dated 27th April, 2018 to The West Bengal Nursing Personnel (Recruitment) Rules, 2015;

(c ) A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent No. 1 to 3 and/or their agents and/or associates and/or subordinates not to give effect the Gazatte Notification dated 27th April, 2018 to The West Bengal Nursing Personnel (Recruitment) Rules, 2015, till the disposal of the instant Public Interest Litigation.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

2. The petitioner was heard on the question of maintainability of PIL. He submits that although in the case of Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 the Supreme Court opined that PIL is not maintainable in service matter but it is noteworthy that said matter was travailing from an original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this backdrop, the said observation was given by the Supreme Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) (supra). Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and stated that PIL is not maintainable.

3. The point involved is no more res integra. This Court in WPA (P) 299 of 2025 decided on 14.08.2025 considered the entire legal journey on this aspect and recorded as under:

“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.

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