Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 584 (ORI)

Budhiram Ho v. State of Orissa

2014-09-10

A.K.RATH, AMITAVA ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT DR. A.K. RATH, J. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to take immediate action for dismissal of opposite party no.4 from Government service as per Rule 18 read with Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that Bhaskar Bej, opposite party no.4, was the Headmaster In-charge of Padmapokhari Sevashram under the Kaptipada Education District in the district of Mayurbhanj. The petitioner, who is a schedule tribe, wanted to admit his son Narendra Ho in the said Sevashram. The opposite party no.4 demanded Rs.600/-from the petitioner for admission. When the petitioner denied to pay the amount, opposite party no.4 refused to admit his son in the Sevashram and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.300/-to opposite party no.4 on 12.7.2001 and assured to pay the rest amount of Rs.300/-on 27.8.2001. Thereafter, he lodged an F.I.R. before the S.P. Vigilance, Balasore and trap was conducted by the Vigilance Department, whereafter opposite party no.4 faced the trial in T.R.No.115 of 2007 before the Special Judge (Vigilance) Balasore. Opposite party no.4 was found guilty of the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for two months. In the meantime, opposite party no.4 has been transferred and posted as Headmaster In-charge, Dewan Bahali U.G.U.P. School under Kaptipada Education District. It is further stated that the Vigilance Department vide letter No.8260 dated 28.9.2012 communicated the judgment and requested to take action against opposite party no.4 but no action has been taken. 3. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department and Mr. A.K. Biwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 4. The sole question that hinges for our consideration is as to whether a third party has locus standi in service jurisprudence. The subject matter of dispute is no more res intgra. 5. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vrs. S.N. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department and Mr. A.K. Biwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 4. The sole question that hinges for our consideration is as to whether a third party has locus standi in service jurisprudence. The subject matter of dispute is no more res intgra. 5. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 590, the Hon’ble apex Court came down heavily in entertaining P.I.L. in service matters. The Bench, speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat in para-16 of the report, held as follows:- “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 as 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.” 6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble apex Court in the decision citied supra, no mandamus can be issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to dismiss the opposite party no.4 from service. The writ petition is dismissed.