Shahid Ali vs Union Of India & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 2893 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Date of decision: 2nd July, 2014

+                              W.P.(C) 3994/2014
       SHAHID ALI                                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mohd. Shariq & Mr. Wasim Alam,
                                      Advs. along with petitioner in person.
                                     Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                                ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Ms.
                                      Ritika Jhurani, Adv. UOI
                                      Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The present petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) impugns

the Notification dated 5th March, 2013 of the respondent no.2 Union Public

Service Commission (UPSC) whereby Arabic and Persian have been excluded

from the list of optional subjects mentioned in Group-II "literature of

languages" of the Main Examination for the Civil Services conducted by the

UPSC. The petition also seeks a direction to the respondents to again include

Arabic and Persian as subjects in which the candidates can take the said

examination.

2. The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate of this Court and is

neither a candidate for the said examination nor an aspirant for the Civil

Services. We have as such enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

how the issue can be taken up as PIL. It is not as if the persons if any affected

or aggrieved by the impugned Notification are not in a position to themselves

approach this Court. Such persons if any, being aspirants to the Civil Services

of this Country, are more than well equipped to and capable of, if aggrieved

from exclusion of Arabic and Persian language from the subjects in which the

said examination can be taken, to themselves challenge the same.

3. The legal tool of Public Interest Litigation was invented by the Courts as

an exception to the otherwise well established rule, of only a person having

cause of action or locus standi being entitled to approach the Court. Such

invention was deemed necessary finding that in certain situations, owing to

social or economic backwardness or other reasons the aggrieved parties were

themselves unable to approach the Court (see S.P. Gupta Vs. UOI 1981

Supp.(1) SCC 87 and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010)

3 SCC 402). The field of operation of the said tool was expanded to cover

situations where a general direction of the Court was deemed necessary, not

for the benefit of any one person or a group of persons but for the benefit of

the public generally viz. protection and preservation of ecology, environment

etc. and for maintaining probity, transparency and integrity in governance.

The Supreme Court else has been repeatedly issuing warnings, of allowing the

said tool of Public Interest Litigation to be misused (see Balco Employees

Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333). The petitioner has

been unable to satisfy us as to how it is entitled to file this petition in public

interest. The warnings issued by the Supreme Court, of Public Interest

Litigation becoming Publicity Interest Litigation (see Neetu Vs. State of

Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614) and of allowing "meddlesome interlopers" to file

Public Interest Litigation (see S..P. Gupta supra) is apposite in this regard.

Similarly, in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra AIR 2008

SC 913 it was held that Public Interest Litigation is to be used for delivering

social justice to the citizens.

4. The present case falls in neither of the said categories. The persons if

any who had made themselves eligible to take the examination in the said

subjects and who are aggrieved from exclusion thereof can neither be said to

be socially or economically backward nor can it be said that the action of the

respondent UPSC of such exclusion is such as affecting the general public

without affecting anyone in particular. The petitioner has been unable to

satisfy us as to how is he entitled to file the petition in public interest. The

Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. supra has also held that the

Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with such busybodies or meddlesome

interlopers impersonating as public spirited persons and masquerading as

crusaders of justice. Similarly, in Dr. B. Singh Vs. U.O.I. (2004) 3 SCC 363 it

was held that Courts should not waste valuable judicial time which can be

otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases, in deciding petitions which

cannot legitimately be called PILs.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has however argued that the petitioner had

earlier also by way of W.P.(C) No.1964/2014 raised the said issue by way of a

PIL and which petition was entertained and disposed of on 26 th March, 2014

owing to the petitioner having made the representation in this regard to the

respondent UPSC just prior thereto, and directing the respondent UPSC to give

a response to the said representation of the petitioner.

6. We are unable to hold that the petitioner, if otherwise not entitled to

raise the said issue by way of a PIL as above observed, shall become entitled to

do so for the reason of the aforesaid. This Court, in the order dated 26 th March,

2014 did not go into the said aspect and it thus cannot be said that the petition

for the said reason is entitled to be entertained as a PIL.

7. We may also record that the respondent no.2 UPSC has in its response

dated 28th April, 2014 to the representation of the petitioner informed the

petitioner that "The scheme of examinations had undergone certain changes

since 2013 according to the suggestions made by a Review Committee

constituted by the Commission, inputs of the Commission thereon and

acceptance of some of its recommendations by the Government. The modified

scheme of Civil Services Examination, 2013 were accordingly notified by the

Government wherein literatures of those languages which are presently

included in the 8th Schedule to the Constitution of India, besides English, were

offered as optional subjects for the Civil Services (Main) Examination".

8. The petitioner, in response to our query as to what is the right if any to

take the examination in Arabic or Persian literature and how the impugned

action of the respondent no.2 UPSC can be said to be illegal, though admits

that along with Arabic and Persian other foreign languages have also been

excluded but contends that since English language which is also not included

in the 8th Schedule has been retained, Arabic and Persian be also retained.

9. We are unable to agree that English language is to be equated with other

foreign languages. Article 343 of the Constitution of India, while prescribing

Hindi in Devanagari script as the language of the Union, permits continuation

of English language for all official purposes of the Union in which it was being

used immediately before commencement of the Constitution, for a period of 15

years from such commencement and allows the Parliament to by law provide

for the use after the said period of 15 years also, of English language for such

purposes as may be specified in law. The Parliament, by promulgating The

Official Languages Act, 1963, has in addition to Hindi provided for

continuation of the use of English language for all official purposes of the

Union for which it was previously being used and for all transactions of

business in Parliament. The same cannot be said of Arabic or Persian or other

foreign languages. There is thus no merit also in the contention of the

petitioner of discrimination.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has vaguely also sought to argue that

Arabic and Persian continue to be taught in various educational institutions.

The same also in our view does not mandate the inclusion thereof as a subject

of examination for appointment to the Civil Services of the country. The

appointing authority is fully entitled to choose the subjects in which it desires

to test the candidates for such appointment.

11. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition which is dismissed. We

however refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 02, 2014 pp