Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
PILs are generally barred in service appointment disputes per Supreme Court law (Duryodhan Sahu, Girjesh Shrivastava), favoring individual writs under Article 226 ["Saifuddin Purkait vs State of West Bengal - Calcutta"] ["Hansmina Kumari Das VS State of Orissa - Orissa"]. Exceptions apply for quo warranto against public office illegality (e.g., statutory non-compliance), requiring public injury proof and petitioner bona fides ["ASHWINI KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"] ["Rajinder Nischal VS Union of India Through Its Secretary - Delhi"]. Courts often dismiss PILs but permit refiling as writs ["Tangmong S/o Pachi vs State of Nagaland - Gauhati"]. File as writ petition unless clear public office violation ["Samta Andolan Samiti, through Its State President Shri Parashar Narain Sharma VS Union of India, through Secretary - Rajasthan"] ["Sukhsagar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"].
In today's litigious society, concerns over government appointments often lead citizens to consider filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). But what if the appointment seems illegal? Can you rush to court with a PIL? The question arises frequently: what are the laws applicable to file a PIL against illegal appointment? This blog explores the nuanced Indian legal framework, drawing from Supreme Court precedents, to guide you on maintainability, exceptions, and pitfalls.
While PILs empower the public to enforce rights, courts strictly limit their use in service and appointment disputes to prevent abuse. This post breaks down key principles, supported by case law, and integrates insights on illegal versus irregular appointments. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your specific case.
PIL, under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, allows any public-spirited individual to seek justice for widespread wrongs. However, it's not a free-for-all. Courts have repeatedly held that PILs are not maintainable in service matters related to appointments. Only aggrieved non-appointees can challenge via service disputes, not PILs. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202
For instance, reservation policy issues must be raised as service disputes: If at all there was an issue with respect to the reservation policy of the ex-servicemen it ought to have been brought up as a service dispute and not in a PIL. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202
A writ of quo warranto—challenging one's right to hold office—doesn't lie without statutory violations: a writ of quo warranto would not lie since there is no violation of a statute in the appointment – indeed, no statutory or other qualification or eligibility criterion has been laid down for the appointment. State of Punjab VS Salil Sabhlok - 2013 2 Supreme 135
To succeed, demonstrate genuine public interest, not personal or political motives. A PIL filed after 14 years amid political rivalry was dismissed as sheer abuse of process of court... nothing but a sheer abuse of process of court. It was by no stretch of imagination Public Interest Litigation and it was filed because of personal and political rivalry. Gurpal Singh VS State Of Punjabs - 2005 4 Supreme 35
High Courts won't decide without impleading those vitally affected: A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202
File promptly, especially pre-oath for judges. Post-oath challenges after years are barred: Writ of quo warranto for quashing appointment of High Court Judge - Maintainability - Maintainable before the incumbent takes oath and occupies office - Instantly incumbent functioning as High Court Judge for more than a decade - Writ not maintainable. M. Manohar Reddy VS Union of India - 2013 1 Supreme 563
For High Court judges, PILs are limited to eligibility or consultation defects pre-oath, not suitability or removal: Appointment of a High Court Judge can be challenged only on two grounds - Lack of eligibility and lack of effective consultation. M. Manohar Reddy VS Union of India - 2013 1 Supreme 563 Removal requires impeachment under Articles 124/217: PIL for removal of High Court Judge- Not proper forum... Proper remedy would be impeachment under article 124 or 217. M. Manohar Reddy VS Union of India - 2013 1 Supreme 563
In a CBI Special Director's case, PIL was dismissed absent illegality. Common Cause VS Union of India - 2017 8 Supreme 764
Distinguishing illegal from irregular appointments is crucial. Illegal appointments (e.g., against non-sanctioned posts or de hors rules) can't be regularized: Illegal appointment has been held to be illegal, if appointment is not against the sanctioned post or de hors the rule while irregular appointment has been held to be irre... Vivekanand Dubey VS C. M. D. -cum-Chairman - 2020 Supreme(Jhk) 470 If appointment is illegal, there cannot be any consideration for regularization. Vivekanand Dubey VS C. M. D. -cum-Chairman - 2020 Supreme(Jhk) 470
An illegal appointment is a nullity: The appointment of Respondent No.1 being contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, the same was a nullity. An appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be leglized... P. Senthil Kumar VS R. Sunitha - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 5090D. Ranjan Sundara Kumar VS Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 1583
In pension disputes, proceedings decades after illegal appointments (e.g., 1981) violated rules: There is no sanction issued by State Government and illegal appointments alleged are far prior to retirement; more than three decades before retirement – There is clear violation of Rule 43(b). Courts set aside penalties, imposing costs on the State. Kamini Kumari VS State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 496
Terminations post-PIL findings require individual hearings: Impugned orders were cyclostyled without case-specific review, violating natural justice. Ajit Kr. Goswami VS State of Assam - 2012 Supreme(Gau) 153
Appointments breaching Article 16 (equal opportunity) are illegal, not mere irregularities: If appointment has been made in denial of constitutional obligation... cannot be branded as mere irregular appointments... if appointment has been made of an unqualified person to a post, such appointment is not merely irregular but illegal. Golap Sena Sinha and Ors. VS State of Meghalaya and Ors. - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 807
Courts prefer targeted relief: Illegal beneficiaries from the selection process, if any, should have been weeded out instead of striking down the entire selection process. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202 Balance equities: While exercising discretion under Article 226, equities in regard to the parties have to be balanced. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202
No vested rights from waiting lists legitimize broad PILs.
Rarely, PILs probe high-profile roles if alleging mala fides or statutory breaches (e.g., CBI Director consultation flaws). Common Cause VS Union of India - 2017 8 Supreme 764 Pre-oath quo warranto for judges on eligibility. M. Manohar Reddy VS Union of India - 2013 1 Supreme 563 But delays, non-impleadment, or private motives doom them.
Opt for service tribunals, departmental proceedings, or impeachment instead. Seek Supreme Court if High Court errs on equities.
Navigating PILs demands precision. Stay informed, act ethically, and prioritize proper forums to uphold justice without abusing process.
References:1. Girjesh Shrivastava VS State of M. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 202 – PIL non-maintainability in service matters.2. State of Punjab VS Salil Sabhlok - 2013 2 Supreme 135 – Quo warranto limits.3. Gurpal Singh VS State Of Punjabs - 2005 4 Supreme 35 – Abuse of process.4. M. Manohar Reddy VS Union of India - 2013 1 Supreme 563 – Judicial appointments.5. Common Cause VS Union of India - 2017 8 Supreme 764 – High-level dismissals.6. Kamini Kumari VS State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 496, Vivekanand Dubey VS C. M. D. -cum-Chairman - 2020 Supreme(Jhk) 470, Ajit Kr. Goswami VS State of Assam - 2012 Supreme(Gau) 153, P. Senthil Kumar VS R. Sunitha - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 5090, Golap Sena Sinha and Ors. VS State of Meghalaya and Ors. - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 807, D. Ranjan Sundara Kumar VS Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 1583 – Illegal/irregular distinctions.
#PILIndia, #IllegalAppointment, #IndianLaw
be rendered illegal and void and therefore the appointment of the private respondents as Assistant Professors without following the due process of law is illegal and void. ... as prescribed by law. ... However, the petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate and separate writ petitions in accordance with law if so advised. Before parting with the records, this Court has taken note of the fact that contract/interim arrangements are being continued till date. ... ....
; the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 also speaks about minimum 10 years experience for appointment on the post in question, and therefore, the appointment of the respondent no. 5 on the post in question is not justified in law. ... This Court observes that the petitioner in this PIL petition is challenging the appointment of the respondent no. 5 on the post of Vice Chancellor of the University. ... and a. by an appropriate, writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to appoi....
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. ... Thereafter, they filed the present PIL. Since, they are persons interested, this PIL is not maintainable, although the persons interested can file and maintain a regular writ petition. ... In view of fo....
The complaint was looked into by the Market Committee and by order dated 22nd May, 1989 it was held that the appointment was not contrary to law. ... —By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder of the Market Committee, Patran was invalid and illegal. The said order came to be passed on the basis of a Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 4. ... The Standing Counsel of the Committee categorically opined that since no moral t....
be rendered illegal and void and therefore the appointment of the private respondents as Assistant Professors without following the due process of law is illegal and void. ... by law. ... The said writ petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. ... However, the petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate and separate writ petitions in accordance with law if so advised. Before parting with the records, this Court has taken note of the....
the contents on affidavit, the PIL stands disposed of. ... Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.-The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." 24. ... The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed his appointment, which gave rise to an appeal, before the Apex Court. ... Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file miscon....
In the said case, the judgment was passed by the Apex Court while hearing a transfer petition and the question that was raised in the Apex Court was as to whether the appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed ... (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. ... The Petitioner seeks to challenge the method of empanelment of Advocates to re....
It is submitted that the Petitioner has a locus to file the instant PIL and that it is a well settled position of law that a person, despite being unrelated to the matter, can move the Hon’ble Court under its Writ Jurisdiction praying for a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the illegal and arbitrary appointment ... It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order c....
The order in the PIL only directed the State Government to take proceedings in accordance with law. ... Admittedly, there is no sanction issued by the State Government and the illegal appointments alleged are far prior to the retirement; more than three decades before retirement, which recruitment and appointment are termed illegal. ... The memorandum of charges was framed on 13.10.2016 after her retirement, for the alleged illegal appointment which took place in 1981....
It is submitted that the Petitioner most certainly has a locus to file the instant PIL and that it is a well settled position of law that a person, despite being unrelated to the matter, can move the Court under its Writ Jurisdiction praying for a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging the illegal and arbitrary ... /Pt.File-I/112587809/559-71, dated 10.03.2021, by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 ("Impugned Order"), and whether the said appointment was done in accordance with law, or ....
Likewise in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the issue crept up when the State of Jharkhand had come out with a regularization rule in the year 2015 providing therein to consider the case of one or the other casual worker who have discharged their duty for a period of ten years and the period of ten years had been ordered to be counted up to the date of judgment rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Illegal appointment has been held to be illegal, if appointment is not against the sanctioned post or de hors the rule while irregular appointment has been held to be irre....
As regards the appointment of the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3565/2011, he submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid PIL proceeding having categorically held that her appointment was illegal, there is no wrong in dispensing with her services with due notice to her. Advocate General submits that irrespective of the said finding and/or exclusion, it was within the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government in the Education Department to appreciate the relevant facts towards termination of the services of the said petitioner.
The question involved in the writ petition was a legal question. The appointment of Respondent No.1 being contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, the same was a nullity. An appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be leglized only because the appellant did not file its counter affidavit.
If appointment has been made in denial of constitutional obligation of the State to provide equal opportunity of employment as envisaged by article 16, which is a facet of article 14, cannot be branded as mere irregular appointments, because such appointments, being in breach of fundamental structure of the Constitutional governance cannot be regarded as mere irregular appointments. If an appointment has been made of an unqualified person to a post, such appointment is not merely irregular but illegal. Similarly, if appointment has been made against non-sanctioned post, the appoint....
Appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be legalised only because the appellant did not file its counter affidavit. The question involved in the Writ Petition was a legal question and the illegality committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. 160. in District Basic Educational Officer and Another v. Dhanarajaikumar Shukla and Another (supra), the Supreme Court held that the appointments of 1st respondent being contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 6 of U.P. Basic Schools etc. and the same was a nullity.
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
