Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Baidyanath Saha vs Union Of India And Others on 11 April, 2022
April 11, 2022
Sl. No.11
Court No.1
PA(RB)
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
Baidyanath Saha
vs.
Union of India and others
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,
Mr. Chhandak Dutta, Advocates
... for the petitioner
Mr. Pramod Kr. Drolia,
Mr. Santosh Kr. Pandey, Advocates
... for the Union of India
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhradip Roy,
Mr. Sananda Ganguly, Advocates
... for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate
... for the respondent no. 5
By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has
challenged the advertisement no. 1/2021 dated 27th
January, 2021, wherein the respondent University had
advertised 106 posts of professor, associate professor and
assistant professor on the allegation that there were
certain anomalies for reservation against each category of
vacant posts. The allegation is that no reservation roster
was published prior to issuance of the advertisement.
Having examined the petition, we find that the petitioner
has not disclosed his credentials except by stating that he
has no direct pecuniary interest in the matter and that he
is a socially committed law abiding citizen. It is the
settled position of law that in service matters, PIL is not
maintainable. The persons, if any, affected by the
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
advertisement can always file the appropriate petition or
approach the appropriate forum questioning the same. In
the matter of Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 10
SCC 707 where in a Public Interest Litigation, allegation
of non-issuance of proper advertisement for reservation
for ex-servicemen was made, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
taking note of the legal position in respect of
maintainability of the PIL in a service dispute had held
that:
"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 is over selection
and appointment which is a service matter.
15. In Duryodhan Sahu (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."
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
Same reasoning applies here as a public
interest litigation has been filed when the entire
dispute relates to selection and appointment.
16. 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).
17. 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).
18. Same principles have been reiterated in
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (SCC at p.
358, para 16).
19. In a recent decision of this Court
delivered on 30-8-2010, 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)."
It has further been held that:
"29. Coming to the issue of selection and
appointment of ex-servicemen as a reserved
category, from what has been placed before us, we
understand that while in Mehagaon 5 ex-
servicemen had been appointed out of a total of 9
applicants, in Raun none had been so appointed.
As stated above, if at all there was an issue with
respect to the reservation policy of the ex-
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
servicemen it ought to have been brought up as a
service dispute and not in a PIL. The High Court,
with due respect, should have displayed a little
more restraint and balance before quashing a
selection process in which the persons selected had
already put in 3 years of service."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Dr Meera Massey (Mrs) Dr Abha
Malhotra Dr. S.C. Bhadwal and Others Vs. Dr S.R.
Mehrotra and Others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 88 but
not only in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava (supra) and a
number of earlier judgments noted therein but also
subsequently in the matter of Madan Lal v. High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in (2014)
15 SCC 308, it has been held that:
"9. That apart time and again this Court
repeatedly held that in service matters, public
interest litigation is not maintainable. We can
profitably refer to a recent decision reported in Hari
Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto. Paras 14 and
15 are relevant which are as under: (SCC pp. 660-
61)
"14. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of
W.B. this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 358-59,
para 16)
'16. 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
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
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 utilised for disposal of genuine
cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu v.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra [Duryodhan
Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998)
7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] 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
WPA (P) 92 of 2021
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, B.
Singh v. Union of India, Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Gurpal
Singh v. State of Punjab.
15. The above principles make it clear
that except for a writ of quo warranto, public
interest litigation is not maintainable in
service matters.""
Hence, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is
not entitled to benefit of the judgment in the matter of Dr.
Meera Massey (supra) and that the present Public
Interest Petition raising a dispute relating to service
matter cannot be held to be maintainable which is
accordingly dismissed, however, making it clear that this
order will not come in the way of the parties affected from
alleged irregularity from approaching the competent
Court.
[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]
[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]
