Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 95 (MP)

VIVEK KUMAR LAKHERA v. STATE OF M. P.

2013-01-17

K.K.TRIVEDI, S.A.BOBDE

body2013
ORDER : 1. Heard. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has challenged the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in Vidhan Sabha, Bhopal and prayed for their removal from service and for a direction to recover the money paid to them by way of salary and other emoluments. 2. The main contention of Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have neither applied for those posts nor have any eligibility to hold the post to which they have been appointed and, therefore, the petition is entitled to be maintained as public interest litigation because public money has been spent wrongly and appointments have been made at the cost of persons who might have been eligible. Moreover according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is a report prepared by a retired High Court Judge to the effect the appointments have been found to be illegal and, therefore, this writ petition should be entertained. 3. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appointees, Shri VS. Shroti, learned senior counsel and Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for Vidhan Sabha have opposed this petition as public interest litigation mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a busy body and a stranger to the appointments in question. They have denied the existence of any corrupt motives and submitted that any finding in this regard may be directed to be made by the competent Court or Tribunals empowered to go into the legality of the appointments. 4. We are of the view that the issue whether the High Court in public interest litigation should entertain challenges made to appointments etc. i.e. in relation to service matters is no more res integra is covered by the following judgments of Supreme Court: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., AIR 1999 SC 114 Girjesh Shrivastava and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 707 , Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3515 and P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1883 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pushpendra Singh Baghel Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, AIR 2010 SC 3515 and P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1883 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pushpendra Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and others, (2006) 1 MPJR 239 : (2005) 4 MPLJ 424 where this Court entertained a public interest litigation in regard to the appointment of a person on compassionate ground. We find that the circumstances of that case are different from the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, all the judgments referred to above were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges while deciding the above petition. We are of the view that service matters which involve questions of livelihood of the appointees including the questions of livelihood of the appointees including the questions relating to their status should be tried and decided by the competent Courts when brought before such Courts and Tribunals by the persons aggrieved thereby and not at the instance of strangers in the shape of public interest litigation. In these circumstances, the rule is discharged. The petition is dismissed. All the interim orders stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Dismissed.