Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1818 (ALL)

Vision India Welfare Trust v. Union of India

2022-11-18

J.J.MUNIR, PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 2. The petitioner, Vision India Welfare Trust, a registered charitable trust as it claims, has filed this petition through its Treasurer, Mohd. Ali Ansari, seeking to question the selection of respondent no.6 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Algarh Muslim University, Aligarh (for short, 'the University'). 3. The petitioner seeks to move this petition in public interest and asks this Court to quash the recommendations of the General Selection Committee held on 25.07.2015 to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology of the University. A mandamus has also been sought to declare the appointment of respondent no.6 void ab initio and direct recovery of salary paid to him on account of his appointment on the post of Associate Professor. There is no writ of quo warranto that the petitioner seeks. 4. Since the petition is one that claims to be moved in public interest, in our opinion, the petition must pass muster of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII reads : "(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State." 5. Paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6, which are pleadings made to comply with Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 read : "3. That at the very outset it is stated that the petitioner has no selfish motive behind filing of this petition and he is filing this petition by way of PIL only in common interest of public at large. 4. That the petitioner will not get any profit/ loss by filing the present petition. 5. That at the very outset it is stated that the petitioner has no selfish motive behind filing of this petition and he is filing this petition by way of PIL only in common interest of public at large. 4. That the petitioner will not get any profit/ loss by filing the present petition. 5. That the petitioner is a social trust namely Vision India Welfare Trust and is not politically motivated by any political party nor have been financed by any person/ political party to file this PIL. A photocopy of the trust deed dated 14.11.2008 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 1 to this PIL. 6. That the facts giving arise to the present public interest litigation are startling as without any fear and in collusion with official respondent of the government, the private respondent has been recruited as Associate professor, Department of Psychology of Aligarh Muslim University." 6. Now, it must be observed at the outset that Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter XXII is no ceremony to be observed by a petitioner, who moves this Court in public interest. A petitioner moving this Court in public interest must substantially comply with the requirements of the Rule. What we find ex facie from the averments in Paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition is that the petitioner has hardly done that. The contents of Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition show no more than a paraphrasing of the contents of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1. There is just a reference to the label of contents that a PIL petitioner must satisfy before maintaining his petition. There are no facts pleaded vis-à-vis any of the requirements which the Rule postulates to maintain a petition in public interest. The first of the requirements is the disclosure of the petitioner's credentials. To that end, the petitioner has said nothing more than that, that the petitioner is a charitable trust and is not politically motivated by any political party nor financed by any person or political party to file the present PIL. This, as already said, is no more a hollow orchestration of one part of Rule 1(3-A), that is to say, the part relating to disclosure of credentials. 7. This, as already said, is no more a hollow orchestration of one part of Rule 1(3-A), that is to say, the part relating to disclosure of credentials. 7. The petitioner does not say by as much as a whisper about itself, or its office bearers, what kind of activities does the Vision India Welfare Trust undertakes, what has it done in the past towards charity or the realization of charitable objectives that it may have set for itself. A copy of the trust deed, that has been enclosed, appears to be either a truncated part of the document or a deed that is so vague that one cannot make out what the objects of the trust are. Nothing more in the trust deed has been said about its objects than that, that it is a non-political, non-religious and charitable trust. But, what kind of charity it proposes to do, the trust deed hardly spells out. If one were to leave aside the trust deed and take the petitioner's assertions on its face value that the petitioner-Trust has some charitable objectives, the petitioner was certainly required to show its activities in the past and what kind of charity it has undertaken. For example, a Trust with a charitable object may pursue philanthropic activities, like taking care of orphans or providing food and clothing to the needy or destitutes or ensuring education of children of economically weaker sections of the society. It can be innumerable things that would all account for charitable objectives. 8. The petitioner would, however, have to state what kind of charity it does in order to establish their credentials. If it is the petitioner's object that they go after corruption in public activities, it would have to be specifically pleaded and from instances shown how the petitioner in the past has worked to chase and weed out corruption in public life. Not a word has been said by the petitioner about any specific activities that it has undertaken in the past. In the absence of that, a bald assertion of the kind that finds place in Paragraph No. 5, in our opinion, would not satisfy the first part of Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII that requires the petitioner to establish its credentials by affidavit. 9. The next part of Rule 1(3-A) require that the petitioner must show what public cause it seeks to espouse. 9. The next part of Rule 1(3-A) require that the petitioner must show what public cause it seeks to espouse. There is hardly anything said about it either. In our considered opinion, the petitioner in no way satisfies the two essential parts of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. 10. The other aspect which requires elucidation is that what the petitioner seeks is to question the appointment of respondent no.6 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology of the University. This right is reserved to a person, who is aggrieved by this selection. A reading of the petition leaves an unmistakable impression on our mind that the petitioner wants this Court to enter into the thicket of facts and law about the validity of the sixth respondent's selection and appointment as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology of the University. We could be called upon to do this by a candidate for the post who had failed to get selected; not a stranger claiming to espouse some kind of a mysterious public interest, that is hardly spelt out. 11. This Court finds that in substance, the cause of action involved in the present writ petition is one of a pure service matter. This Court cannot ignore the salutary principle that in service matters, a public interest litigation does not lie. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349 . In Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court 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 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 [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114 ] 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." (emphasis by Court) 12. In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after considering the decisions in Ashok Kumar Pandey (supra), Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363 , Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 , held : "15. The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters." 13. We have remarked earlier and we do say again that this petition has not at all been framed as one for a writ of quo warranto and neither does it seek that relief. The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters." 13. We have remarked earlier and we do say again that this petition has not at all been framed as one for a writ of quo warranto and neither does it seek that relief. It does not conform to the requirements of that writ. It has been styled and filed as a public interest litigation, properly so called, with reliefs sought in the nature of a certiorari (though without saying so) and a mandamus or directions akin to these writs. 14. The petitioner, which is admittedly a trust, certainly does not have a private cause of action against the sixth respondent's selection as an Associate Professor in the University. It has not been able to establish what kind of a public interest it seeks to espouse. This is quite apart from the principle that we have just noticed that in a service matter, a PIL just does not lie. 15. For all these reasons, we do not find any force in this petition and order it to stand dismissed.