Dr. S. Karnakar Reddy vs State Of Telangana And 8 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4604 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

           WRIT PETITION (PIL) Nos.69, 110 and 180 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:             (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


          These three petitions are being disposed of by this

common order, as the issue involved in all these petitions

is one and the same.

          The petitioner, who was an Assistant Professor of

Botany in Osmania University, has filed the Public Interest

Litigation No.180 of 2021 challenging the appointment of

Professor Gopal Reddy as Vice Chancellor of Osmania

University.

          Undisputedly, the present writ petitions have been

filed as Public Interest Litigations. Heavy reliance has been

placed upon a Judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in the case of Malireddy Venkata Raya Phaneendra

v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. It has been argued that in

similar circumstances, Public Interest Litigation was held

to be maintainable.

          Learned Government Pleader at the outset has

informed this Court that though the Judgment delivered by

the Andhra Pradesh High Court has a persuasive value, it

has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.

(C) No.6941 of 2021 (Professor M. Ramalinga Raju v. State


1
    2021 SCC OnLine AP 1042
                                        2




of Andhra Pradesh) on 28.05.2021. He has also drawn the

attention of this Court to the Judgment delivered in the

case of P.Anil Kumar v. Telangana State Power Generation

Corporation Limited and other connected matters, decided

on      18.09.2018          and      contended      that     in    similar

circumstances, this Court has held that Public Interest

Litigation is not at all maintainable in service matters.

        Paragraph       15    of     the   aforesaid    Judgement        is

reproduced as under:-

        "15. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the public
      interest litigation, as rightly contended by Mr. G.Vidya
      Sagar,      learned   Senior    Counsel    appearing   for   the
      Corporation, is not maintainable. The law is well settled on
      this point in the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr.
      Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra2. This principle was

      reiterated in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab3. Again in Hari
      Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto4, the Supreme Court made

      it clear that except a Writ of Quo warranto, no public
      interest litigation is maintainable in service matters.
      Finally, the view was re-affirmed in Madan Lal v. High Court of
      Jammu and Kashmir5, where the Supreme Court held that

      pro bono publico writ petitions cannot be entertained in
      service matters. Therefore, the public interest litigation writ
      petition is liable to be dismissed."


        In the light of the aforesaid Judgment, the present

Public Interest Litigations are certainly not maintainable

and are accordingly dismissed. Liberty is given to the

2
  (1998) 2 SCC 273
3
  (2005) 5 SCC 136
4
  (2010) 9 SCC 655
5
  (2014) 15 SCC 308
                              3




petitioners to take recourse to the other remedies available

under law.

     Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.



                              _____________________________
                                 SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ



                                           ________________
                                            N.TUKARAMJI, J


27.12.2021

Pln