Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
NEERAJ NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/26506/2018
Public Interest Litigation - Service Matters - Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 Section 2, 3; Kerala Financial Code Rule 69(c) - The court upheld precedent that public interest litigation (PIL) is not maintainable in service matters, asserting that appointments and service issues should be addressed through appropriate forums rather than PILs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, representing public interest, challenged a government scheme allowing compassionate appointments, alleging it was misused to create supernumerary posts for wealthy applicants, violating rules and costing the state considerable losses.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the matter involved service issues unsuitable for PIL, as established by prior judgments. The court emphasized the importance of locus standi, concluding that such petitions should be dismissed to avoid misuse of court processes.
Issues: Whether a public interest litigation can be maintained in service matters and if the government scheme violated established rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that public interest litigations cannot address service matters, reinforcing the established judicial precedent on the need for proper standing and the correct forum for such challenges.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.
The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a direction to the effect that the operation of Exts. P3, P4, P5 and P6 Government Orders are stayed;
2. Issue a direction to the effect that the first respondent shall not create or fill any more supernumerary posts for accommodating persons under Ext. P1 compassionate appointment scheme.
3. Issue a direction to the first respondent not to disburse any amounts of family pension for those families/persons who have been benefited by grant of a job under Ext. P1 scheme; and
4. Issue a direction to the first respondent to file a detailed report/statement specifying the total number of employees in the State of Kerala who are appointed under Ext. P1 scheme, indicating their percentage in the public employment, number of supernumerary posts created under Ext. P1 scheme and implementation of Ext. P1 scheme until this date.
2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner, an advocate, has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation challenging Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, State Government has diluted the prescriptions of Ext. P1 scheme and is now granting appointment under the guise of compassion to persons/families with an income of more than Rs.66000/- per month, excluding the family pension and terminal benefits.
3. It is also contended that in order to grant appointment to multitudes of wealthy and unmeritorious sons/daughters of the Government servants, first respondent Government has arbitrarily created more than 13,962 supernumerary posts, in violation of clauses (i)to (viii) in Rule 69(c) in Chapter IV of the Kerala Financial Code (Volume-I) during 2012-2017 and that it caused an approximate loss of Rs. 500 Crores.
4. Sri. S. Sabarinadh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Ext. P1 is issued by the Government without power and therefore, it is a nullity. He also contended that Ext. P1 is not a rule regulating public service as defined under Sections 2 and 3 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 and therefore, Ext. P1 scheme is in violation of Rule 3 in Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Rules, 1958.
5. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, inviting our attention to the order dated 14th February, 2020 in O.A. (EKM) No. 265/2019, Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that Ext. P1 Government Order bearing No. G.O.(P) No. 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999 was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal and after considering the rival contentions, by a common order dated 14th February, 2020, the Tribunal was pleased to uphold Ext. P1.
6. A memo dated 6th December, 2021 has been filed along with copies of G.O. (Ms.) No. 5/2018/P& ARD dated 21.02.2018, G.O. (P) No. 1/2018/P&ARD dated 07.01.2018, G.O.(Ms) No. 13/2020/P&ARD dated 16.11.2020 and a copy of the judgment in OP(KAT) No. 25 of 2019. He further submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM) No. 265/2019 and connected cases has been challenged in O.P. (KAT) No. 252 of 2021 before this Court along with other connected cases and that the same is pending consideration.
7. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC, endorsed the above submission.
8. The first relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare Ext. P1 as violative of Articles 14,16, 309 and 320 of the Constitution of India and is in contravention to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
9. First of all, instant writ petition relates to service matter. On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation in service matter is not maintainable, exception being a writ of quo warranto. Reference can be made to a few decisions:
"(i) When maintainability of the public interest writ petition, in service matters, was raised by us, Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on, a Hon'ble Full Be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
