Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P.R. Subas Chandran vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 10 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALT467
ORDER
1. Rule Nisi. The learned Government Pleader for G.A.D. took notice for the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has averred that he is a Freelance Journalist and he is working in a local daily newspaper and regularly contributing to other up country magazines. The petitioner has not disclosed the identity of the newspaper where he is presently serving. Be that as it may, he has filed this Writ Petition as a pro bono public character to espouse the public interest. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the third respondent, after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, on contract basis is quite contrary to law and the Government Order, G.O.Ms. No. 241, dated 24-10-1995 which has laid down certain guide-lines for regulating re-employment or re-appointment of the State Officers who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is well settled that administrative instructions have no force of law, but in certain circumstances administrative instructions can be enforced where the Court finds that violation of administrative instructions would violate postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1 do not find such violation in this case. It is well settled that even after retirement of a Government servant, if the State Government in its wisdom thinks that it is expedient to appoint such person who is eminently fit to assume certain responsibilities in the administration of the State, the Government can enter into contract with the retired officer and utilise his services. This practice is in vogue not only in this country but also in other countries.
3. Added to this, having regard to the tests and parameters laid down by this Court governing Public Interest Litigation in K. Hanumantha Rao vs. Principal Sub-Judge, , and in K. Prabhakar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 (2) ALT 1, the petitioner cannot be treated as a pro bono public character nor the writ petition be treated as Public Interest Litigation. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has come to this Court to espouse the cause of the other Central service personnel serving in the State. The personnel serving in the State are not so helpless or disabled to agitate their grievance, if any, by instituting appropriate legal action. If the appointment of the third respondent injures any of their legal right, it is for them to make grievance, and such grievance cannot be subject-matter of Public Interest Litigation.
4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.