A writ petition regarding service matters is not maintainable by a stranger, and the remedy for non-registration of an FIR lies with the Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“7.1 That, Writ in nature mandamus be issued to direct the respondents authority to decide petitioner’s representation (Annexure P/7) on merit early as possible, and may be directed to the respondents authority to terminate to the respondent no.5 from his service, in the interest of justice.

7.2 Any other direction/order, which deemed fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has made a representation to District Education Officer, Shahdol to dismiss Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Primary Assistant Teacher from his job as well as to lodge an FIR for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC. It is submitted that although the representation is pending but no action has been taken.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State that it is well established principle of law that petition in respect of service matter of an employee is not maintainable on behalf of a stranger and further no Writ Petition is maintainable for registration of FIR.

4. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

Whether a Writ Petition with regard to service matter of an employee is maintainable at the behest of a stranger or not?

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136 has held as under:-

“5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests : (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

6. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 676 : (1994) 27 ATC 116] and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC 647 : AIR 1994 SC 2151].) No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038 : JT (1996) 7 SC 265] .] Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.

7. As noted supra, the time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as