Madras High Court
S.M. Syed Iqbal vs The Registrar, University Of Madras And ... on 25 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)4MLJ518
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, M. Venugopal
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This public interest litigation has been preferred by the petitioner for a declaration that the entire selection process started by the 1st respondent, University of Madras, pursuant to advertisement published in the newspaper "The Hindu" on 10th Sept., 2007, in Ref. No. D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD 138, dated 8th Sept., 2007, for selection of teaching faculties in its various departments without complying with the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in the Service under the State) Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2007') is null and void and illegal.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Thouhid Jamath, a registered organisation. He, along with other members, organised various forms of protests, conferences, public meetings, etc., to get reservation for Muslims in Tamil Nadu. It is stated that he is filing the writ petition as public interest litigation to save the interest of number of members of his community.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Madras University is a statutory body and is supposed to act in terms with the rules framed by the State. According to him, in view of lesser representation, the Act in question has been framed to grant reservation in favour of backward communities belonging to Muslim and Christian religion. The grievance of the petitioner is that Madras University published the impugned advertisement in the newspaper "The Hindu" dated 10th Sept., 2007, in Ref. No. D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD 138, dated 8th Sept., 2007, to select teaching faculties for its various departments and the same has been done without complying with the provisions of the Act, 2007. It was prayed to declare such selection as null and void and illegal.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State referred to the pleading made in the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner in his individual capacity and that no public interest is involved. On factual aspect also it was shown that Act, 2007, is not applicable in respect of the posts advertised. It was brought to the notice of the Court that University of Madras originally invited applications for teaching faculties aforesaid vide its advertisement published on 11th May, 2006. A copy of the advertisement was produced. He also refer to the impugned advertisement dated 10th Sept., 2007, wherein at Note No. 4 below the advertisement, following information has been given:
Note:
4.
Those who had applied in response to our earlier advertisement dt. 10.05.2006 and 15.09.2006 shall apply again, with updated information and enclosures. However, they are exempted from payment of application fees.
This was shown to suggest that the present advertisement is in continuation of the earlier advertisement of post notified on 10th May, 2006 and 15th Sept., 2006. He also placed reliance on G.O. ms. No. 241 dated 29th Oct., 2007, whereby reservation of appointment in public service, fixation of percentage of reservation for backward class Christian and backward class Muslims were communicated. By the said order, the Government, while directed that the 200 point roster shall be given effect from 15th Sept., 2007, it has been made clear that the vacancies arising on and from 15th Sept., 2007, shall be filled up as per such roster. It was submitted that the original Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 4/07 was published followed by the Act, which has come into effect from prospective date for filling up the vacancies arising on and from 15th Sept., 2007. As the present vacancies are of the earlier period, which were notified on 10th May, 2006 and 15th Sept., 2006, the Act, 2007, for reservation cannot be given effect in respect of such vacancies.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the State, further submitted that the present writ petition has not been filed in public interest, but a publicity interest litigation and referred to a news item published on 7th Feb., 2008, in a vernacular Tamil Newspaper "Dina Thanthi". In the said newspaper report, before filing of the writ petition (presented on 5th Feb., 2008 and filed on 14th Feb., 2008) it appears that the matter was reported to the newspaper, which by its publication informed that a writ petition in public interest has been filed in the High Court for implementation of 3.5% reservation each for backward class Christians and Muslims in all educational institutions. It was submitted that the filing of the writ petition in petitioner's individual capacity, in respect of a matter relating to service and the publication in the newspaper clearly shows that it is not a public interest litigation, but a litigation preferred by the petitioner in the interest of publicity as given in various newspapers.
5. We have heard the parties, noticed the rival contentions and perused the records including the copy of the newspaper publication as produced before us.
6. Now it is settled law that no public interest litigation is maintainable with regard to service matter. This was brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner to show that the petition is not maintainable, but the counsel for the petitioner insisted to place detailed background of reservation policy in favour of one or other community.
In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishrai , the Supreme Court held that in service matters PIL should not be entertained.
Similar was the observation made by Supreme Court in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab , wherein the Supreme Court held that in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed.
In a recent case of Seema Dhamdhere v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 489 (SC), while reiterating earlier decision, the Supreme Court observed that it would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do not have the approval of the Court.
7. At the time of hearing and discussion, this was observed by the Court orally, but the counsel for the petitioner continued to highlight the reservation policy in favour of a community, as stated above. From the submissions as made and the newspaper publication, it appears that the case was filed not in public interest, but with a view to get some publicity, though the present writ petition is not maintainable under the caption "Public Interest Litigation" as it relates to appointment in the service of Madras University.
8. For the reason aforesaid, while we dismiss the writ petition, also impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the petitioner for payment in favour of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, to be paid within six weeks. In case of non-payment, it will be open to the State authorities and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to recover the amount from the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State and the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority for their information.