Ajay Mathur & Another vs Union Of India

This petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed in shape of Public Interest

Litigation by petitioners who claim to be social workers praying for the following reliefs:-

i- Respondents may kindly be directed to withdraw the advertisement dated 21st April, 2020 and issue a fresh advertisement after the lockdown period

is over for appointment of eligible participant through impartial appointment procedure.

ii- Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite directions of the Union of India and as well as the State, restraining conduction of any recruitment

during the period of lock-down arising out of COVID-19 pandemic respondent No.3-Laxmibai National Physical Institute has issued advertisement

P/1 to fill up various teaching and non-teaching posts as described therein. The submission is that during the period of lock- down when heavy

restrictions have been imposed by the govt. as regards physical movements, large number of eligible candidates would be deprived of their right to

participate and to be considered for public employment thereby amounting to violation of their fundamental rights u/Art. 16 of the Constitution.

Thus, a prayer is made for withdrawal of the said advertisement till the present crises of COVID-19 pandemic over.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of this court in Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. &

others 2019(1) MPLJ 92.

On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Khedkar questions the maintainability of this PIL on the ground that the same raises service dispute, by relying

upon decision of Apex court in Madan Lal Vs. High Court of Jammu And Kashmir & another 2014(15) SCC 308.

After due consideration of submissions made by counsel for the rival parties, this court is of the considered view that mode of PIL cannot be used to

agitate service dispute as categorically held by Apex court in several judgments including Hari Banshi Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & others (2010)

9 SCC 655. Relevant paras of said decisions are reproduced below:-

“PIL in service matters:

About maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are series of decisions of this Court laying

down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated

before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a Member

in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the Members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in sub-section (4), the State Government, after getting

a report from the vigilance department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service

jurisprudence.

We have already pointed out that the person who approached the High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be

considered as a Member or Chairman of the Board but according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik Leader. Either before the High Court or in this Court, he has not

placed any material or highlighted on what way he is suitable and eligible for that post.

In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held

18......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"".

In para 21, this Court reiterated as under:

In the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public

interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.

14 In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, this Court held thus:

As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to

note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public

interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real

intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for

disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the

inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw

them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how

the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on

the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain

possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the

frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have

the approval of the courts.

The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji

Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136.

The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters.â€​

In view of the above, this petition in shape of PIL filed by present petitioners who have no personal grievance is not maintainable.

As regards the decision in the case of Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) it is seen from the said verdict that PIL therein was

filed seeking writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of the Registrar, Medicine in G.R.Medical College, Gwalior to hold the post.

However, in the instant case no writ of quo warranto is sought and therefore the said judgment is not applicable.

Moreover, service matters pertaining to respondent No.3-Institute are justiciable before Central Administrative Tribunal u/S. 14(2) of Administrative

Tribunal Act, 1985 vide notification of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) published in M.P.

Extraordinary Gazette dated 31st October, 2008 thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate service

disputes of employees of respondent institute.

In view of above, no case is made out for interference. The petition fails and is dismissed, sans cost.