Karnataka Shuddikarana Samithi vs The Chairman

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—This public interest litigation (P.I.L.) is over not giving the reservation in the matter of appointment of Assistant Professors in the various departments of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology. We are disinclined to entertain this petition on merits, as P.I.L. is not maintainable in service matters. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others, . Paragraph Nos. 14 to 19 of the said decision read as follows:

"14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) No. 1520 of 2001 and WP (C) No. 63 of 2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention. It is common ground that dispute in this case in over selection and appointment which is a service matter.

In Duryodhan Shau (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held: (SCC p. 281, para 18)

"18..... If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the [Administrative] Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated."

Same reasoning applies here as a public interest litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.

In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees'' Assn. this Court held that in service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure (see SCC p. 755, para 51 of the Report).

This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra by pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu, PILs in service matters "continue unabated". This Court opined that the High Courts should "throw out" such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (SCC p. 596, para 16)

Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (SCC at p. 358, para 16).

In a recent decision of this Court delivered on 30.08.2010, in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, it has been held that except in a case for a writ of "quo warranto", PIL in a service matter is not maintainable (see SCC para 15)."

Following the afore-referred decision, we reject this petition without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of this case. It is also made clear that the rejection of this petition will not come in the way of the aggrieved parties approaching this Court or any other forum for the ventilation of their grievances. No order as to costs.