Public Interest Litigation cannot be admitted in service disputes involving the State and its employees.

JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, C.J.

The petitioner claims to be a whistle-blower against corruption and a Right to Information activist. The petitioner contends that the sixth respondent is involved in corrupt practices and seeks the removal of her name from the select list,as well as the initiation of departmental proceedings against her.

2. It appears that on 05.12.2025, the co-ordinate Bench, presided over by the then Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, observed in paragraph 2 as follows:

“2. Prima facie, this petition falls within the realm of service law and it is the settled legal position that Public Interest Litigation is not to be entertained in matters arising out of service disputes between the State and its employees.”

3. Pursuant thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have filed an affidavit justifying the sustainability of the Public Interest Litigation. He has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others¹ in which the appointment of the Chairperson of the U.P. State

1 2012 Supreme(SC) 759

Electricity Regulatory Commission was challenged and a prayer for quo warranto was made in Public Interest Litigation.

4. The facts of Rajesh Awasthi (supra) are not similar to the facts with which we are presently concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner himself discloses that various steps have been taken by the State Administration against the sixth respondent and, in fact, the matter went up to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

5. As observed by the co-ordinate Bench in the order dated

05.12.2025, this is essentially a service dispute between the State and its employees. In a factual situation where proceedings have already been initiated and are pending, we do not propose to entertain this Public Interest Litigation.

6. The Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-