Public interest litigations regarding service matters are not maintainable, emphasizing respect for procedures and prevention of misuse of the judicial system.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of March, 2022

S.Manikumar, C.J.

Alleging that Mr.Shibukumar L., respondent No.3, does not have good track record and not suitable or qualified for the post of Managing Director of the State Farming Corporation of Kerala Limited (respondent No.2), Exhibit P11 representation seemed to have been submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent - State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Contending inter alia that the said representation has not been considered, instant public interest litigation is filed for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the above.

2. We have heard Mr.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and perused the material available on record.

3. Let us consider few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters:

“(i) In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, held as follows:-

“18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. 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.

19. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia Versus State of Orissa 1996. (1) OLR (CSR)-2. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. The following passage in the judgement is relevant:

"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.”

Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It