Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 419 (HP)

Ravi Kant v. State of H. P.

2025-03-21

SUSHIL KUKREJA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant public interest litigation has been filed by an employee of the H.P. University for grant of the following substantive relief:- “i. Issue a writ of certiorari to declare the impugned enactment i.e. Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Govt. Employees Act of 2024, dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) as unconstitutional or ultra vires the Constitution of India thereof.” 2. According to the petitioner, he is aggrieved by the arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent-State to enact a statute which will deny the fundamental and others statutory rights to employee class by creation of class legislation which is antithetic to the rule of law and the constitutional provisions. 3. It is further claimed by the petitioner that being a citizen of Himachal Pradesh and employee of the H.P. University, he is competent to espouse the cause and has also means to pay the costs, if any, imposed by this Court. 4. We have gone through the entire petition and find that the petitioner has not advocated any cause for himself and still claims to be a party aggrieved. Though he is a total stranger and not intrinsically or otherwise concerned with the rules or effected thereby and even as per petitioner, the instant petition is one filed in public interest. 5. Now, the moot question is whether the public interest litigation can be maintained in service matters. The issue is no longer res intergra and has since long been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , wherein a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunals, the very object of speedy disposal of service matter would get defeated”. In para-21 of above noted judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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” 6. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “16. 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” 6. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “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 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 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 Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. ( 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 Court 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 afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 7. In Gajinder Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others reported in 2010 (3) Shimla Law Cases 194, learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:- “22. In Gajinder Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others reported in 2010 (3) Shimla Law Cases 194, learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:- “22. In the present petition, the petitioner has not placed on record his personal credentials for espousing the cause of others. In the petition, he has made a reference that his right has been ignored by appointing respondents No.4 to 9 but surprisingly, he has not made any prayer for himself in the petition. The petition is admittedly a service matter. It was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal. The other prayers in the petition are incidental and those prayers do not change the nature of petition. It appears the petition has been filed for extraneous considerations and to gain publicity. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court, noticed above, public interest litigation in service matter is not maintainable.” 8. This Court while deciding CWPOA No. 6358 of 2020, titled Surender Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others has held as under:- “25 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons recorded above, in our considered view, the instant petition at the first place was not maintainable before the erstwhile Tribunal as it was in the nature of public interest litigation and secondly on the ground of limitation. Since considerable time has otherwise elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.5. Mere fact that the petitioner has thereafter amended the petition and the same has been allowed cannot give him any advantage as it cannot cure the defect as pointed above. 26 The writ petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs” 9. In Samriti Gupta & another vs. State of H.P. & others, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2016, reported in Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 191 has held as under:- “11. 26 The writ petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs” 9. In Samriti Gupta & another vs. State of H.P. & others, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2016, reported in Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 191 has held as under:- “11. Now, what emerges from the aforesaid exposition of law is that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal and the necessary corollary which follows is that it is only “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the Act who can prefer an application for redressal of his grievances before the Tribunal constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. The Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well defined in the Act and more importantly it does not enjoy any plenary power.” 10. Similar reiteration of law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters, can be found in the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India 2004 (4) SCC 323, Gurpal Singh vs. 2005 (5) SCC 136 , Nitu vs. State of Punjab 2007(10) SCC 614 , Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary, M.P. S.C vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (2) SCC 290 , Girjesh Shriastaa vs. State of M.P. 2010 (10) SCC 707 , Bhola Nath Mukherjee and others vs. R.K. Mission V. Centenary College and others, 2011 (5) SCC 464 . 11. Even otherwise, there is distinction between an aggrieved party and an annoyed party as held in case of R. V. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, 1890-25 Qbd 357, wherein the Court held “A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order." 12. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order." 12. The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party alone furnishes the locus-standi to maintain a writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 4 SCC 734 has observed in para 2 as under:- “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas-corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.” 13. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465 has emphasized that existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the pre-condition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It shall be apt to reproduced paras 9 to 11 of the judgment, which read thus:- “9. It shall be apt to reproduced paras 9 to 11 of the judgment, which read thus:- “9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 ; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 ; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 ). 10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. 10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719 ; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361 ). 11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289 , a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.” 14. From the above discussion, it is absolutely clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned the Courts against entertaining the public interest litigation filed by the unscrupulous persons, as such, meddlers who do not hesitate to abuse the process of the Court. 15. It cannot be disputed that the State of Himachal Pradesh has huge employees strength and about 24% of the budget goes towards the salary, therefore, in case such employees are aggrieved by the enactment as assailed in this petition, they would be at liberty to approach this Court and rather some of them have already approached the Court. The petitioner in the instant case, cannot be said to be an aggrieved party so as to furnish him a cause of action and therefore, lacks the locus-standi to file this public interest litigation. 16. Despite the law on the subject having been settled, yet the petitioner has chosen to file the instant petition, would only lead us to one conclusion that this petition has probably been filed for “publicity” and can conveniently be termed as “publicity interest litigation”, which has to be ripped in the bud and thrown out, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Datta Raj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra 2005(1) SCC 590 . 17. Normally, this would have been a fit case where the costs ought to have been imposed upon the petitioner. 17. Normally, this would have been a fit case where the costs ought to have been imposed upon the petitioner. However, since the notices to the opposite party have not been issued, we refrain from doing so with a clear warning to the petitioner who is directed not to indulge in such kind of mis-adventure in future. 18. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we find this writ petition to be not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.