Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
15TH FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 150 OF 2020
Praveen Sharma.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State of : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy
Uttarakhand. Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5. : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8. : Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The petitioner has filed the present Writ
Petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for records,
and to quash the impugned advertisement dated
22.11.2019, and the entire selection process. The other
prayer is to initiate a detailed and proper enquiry,
through an independent agency, against the
respondents.
2. After notice of this Writ Petition, a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 &
5. The main objection taken in the said counter affidavit
is that this PIL is not maintainable, as it is a service
matter. In this regard, they have referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and
others, (2010) 9 SCC 655. In this case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a PIL is not maintainable in
service matters, except by way of writ of quo warranto,
for which appointment must be shown to be contrary to
statutory provisions. In paragraph nos. 13 to 15, it has
been observed as under :-
"13. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. 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:
"21. 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:
"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 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.
15. The above principles make it clear that except
for a writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not
maintainable in service matters."
3. Recently, in the case of Divya Rajesh
Hagaragi v. State of Karnataka and others, W.P.
No. 12388 of 2020 (S-RES), the Karnataka High Court
has also followed the case in Hari Bansh Lal (supra),
and held that a Public Interest Litigation is not
maintainable in a service matter.
4. It is further stated that, pursuant to the
advertisement, selection process has been completed
vide letter dated 21.11.2019. In paragraph no. 9, it is
stated that 75 applications were received for the post of
Lecturer (Political Science), 55 applications were
received for the post of Assistant Teacher LT (Science),
and 88 applications were received for the post of
Assistant Teacher LT (Maths) across the State.
Thereafter, the Selection Committee was constituted
under Sections 36 and 37 of the Uttarakhand School
Education Act, 2006, and vide letter dated 17.02.2020,
the Chief Education Officer was informed that no
selected candidate is related to the members of the
Selection Committee. In paragraph no. 17, it is stated
that, after receiving the order dated 17.02.2020 of the
Chief Education Officer, Dehradun, the entire facts were
brought to the notice of the Chief Education Officer,
Dehradun vide letter dated 20.02.2020 by respondent
no. 4. Thereafter, the Chief Education Officer, Dehradun
gave approval for appointment of the selected
candidates, namely Kumari Hema (Lecturer Political
Science), Deepak Singh Rawat (Assistant Teacher LT
Science), and Vibha Guadi (Assistant Teacher LT Maths).
This approval was granted on 06.03.2020, and the
selected candidates have already joined. The
advertisement was published in Dainik Jagran and
Hindustan Newspapers, which are not only state-level
newspapers, but are also national-level newspapers. So,
due advertisement was given in a correct manner. The
selection of the Chairman of the Interview Committee
was also done under Section 37(2)(i) of the Uttarakhand
School Education Act, 2006, and all these appointments
have already been approved by the department, after
scrutinising the entire process.
5. Since the department has already approved
the selection process, and it is a service matter, in view
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Hari Bansh Lal (supra), this PIL is not
maintainable, and is dismissed as such.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 15th February, 2024
Rahul
