Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prasada Rao Vemireddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 March, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
{Spectal Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO: 381 OF 2078
Between:
Prasada Rao Vemireddy, Sfo Raminaidu Aged about 54 years, Occ- Advocate and
Social Activist, R/o H.No.39-9-16/5/1/31, Subba Rao Residency, Tennetinagar,
Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam District Cell WNo.70736707562, PAN Gard
No.ADRPV8640H Aadhar No.2933 9948 8017 Ale No.300271791471, SBI,
Muralinagar Branch, Visakhapatnam District
w. PETITIONER
AND
j. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Principal Secretary,
School Education Department Secretariat, Velagapud!, Amaravaihi Guntur
District
2. The State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Amaravathi, Guntur District
Andhra Pradesh
3. The District Project Officer,, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Visakhapatnam District
Andhra Pradesh
4. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh
» RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased fo
issue a Writ, or Order, or Direction more particularly ane in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing fhe Memo
No. ESEO1-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE- DEPT dated 04-09-2018 entrusting to
filing up the posts on outsourcing basis in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) to
Manpower Supply Agencies which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the
principals of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the impugned Memo
No. ESEO1-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE- DEPT dated 04-09-2018 issued by the
Respondent No.4.
[A NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the
impugned Memo No. ESE0O1- 12029/96/2018- PROG? SECT- SE- DEPT dated 04-09-
2018 issued by the Respondent No.i, pending disposal of the Public tnterest
Litigation and pass
Counsel for the Pethioner:SREL KARRI SURYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4: GP FOR EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRE G. SEENA KUMAR, SC FOR
APEWIDC & RVMSSA
The Court mace the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION (PDL) NO.381 OF 2018
ORDER:(Per Harvhle Sn Jusiive MSatyanarcujana Murthy) Sri Prasada Rao Vemireddy, a practicing Advocate, claiming to be a social activist, while highlighting his social activism, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as pro boro litigation, to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the Memo No. ESEO1-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE ~DEPT dated 04.09.2018 entrusting to fill up the posts on outsourcing basis in Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan (SSA) to manpower supply agencies as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and also prayed for consequential relief ta set-aside the said MeO, It is alleged that, the petitioner is a practicing advocate and he is also claiming himself as a social activist aged 54 years, came to know that recruitment of outsourcing staff Hke teachers, section officers and other subordinate staff members in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in the State of Andhra Pradesh is being undertaken through outsourcing and entrusted to manpower supply agencies by the first respondent or its governmental agencies i.e. Project Officer. The manpower supply agencies are collecting huge amourt in lakhs depending upon the posts they applied, thereby, the unemployed youth are turning in queue to purchase the posts in their respective capacities.-The same Was lured by the manpower supply agencies and encash the public and unemployed youth. He also contended that the print and electronic media has exposed the same in episodes, on day-
~ HACLS Man WPCFILI 3812018 ta-day basis in their respective newspapers and channels, where fraud and cheating are played by the manpower supply agencies is highlighted. The petitioner also agitated such malpractices of fraud played by the manpower supply agencies and protested before the office of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. But, no purpose was served. He also submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to stop illegal recruitment in Sarva Siksha ADhiyan.
While so, the second respendent issued proceedings vide Re.No.5101/APSSA/A7/2017 dated 27.06.2018 Stating that all the Project Olficers in the State were informed to hold the process of selection of staff on outsourcing basis of their respective districts immediately, until further instructions in the matter. treating it as 'tap priority'. Despite such direction, the first respondent has issued Memo No. ESEQ1-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 directing to gear up academic progress of the institutions. It is contended that. the proceedings issued by the first and second respondents are contradicting each other, The petitioner mainly alleged that, Sarva Siksha Abhivan Scheme is an educational scheme befitting the unemployed youth, where 70% project cost is sponsored by the Central Government and the remaining 30% project cost is sponsored by the State. The State Government takes up recruitment whenever the posts fell vacant or there is need of recruitment without charging the private agencies and thereby, monitors the ertire scheme. It is alleged that. if such process is undertaken, there is every possibility of avoiding fraud by the private agencies and exploitation af unemployed youth and thereby, the process of selection. of itself can be set right. as it would benefit the echicational institutions itself in the entire State and prayed the relief stated supra.
"2
HAG! & MSM! WREPIL) 3812018 The secorid respondent filed counter denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the petition of public iriterest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and it is misconceived, since the dispute is with regard to recruitment through outsourcing agency, which is purely a service dispute and public interest litigation cannot be maintained, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others! and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically contended that, when the petitioner is questioning Memo No.ESEOI- 12029 /96/2018-PROG? SECT-SE ---DEPT dated 04.09.2018, he ought to have made a representation or demanded the authorities concerned ie respondents 1 & 2 and in the event of denial to discharge their legal duty, he can approach the respondents, subject to maintainability of writ petition as public interest Itigation. But, the petitioner straight away approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, on this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissect. | The memo impugned in this writ petition was issued in terms of existing governmental outsourcing policy and unless outsourcing policy is set-aside, the petitioner cannot question the procedure adopted by the respondents. The allegation that the manpower agencies are selling the posts for consideration in lakhs as per the demand is incorrect, for the reason that, no specific complaint is received from any comer of the State or from any of the aspiring candidates. The petition is filed on imaginary grounds, playing fraud and in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, the petition cannot be maintained. The respondent admitted about issue 1 1998 (7) 8CC 273 HACT & MSM WPPILY O8b 298 of memos by respondents 1 & 2, However, contended that intentionally a memo was issued by the second respondent to hold (he selection process, But, on verification of those news items in the news papers, a discrete enquiry was conducted and found no truth in ihe allegations made in the news items. Thereupon, issued memo impugned in this writ petition directing the Project Officers to complete ithe process of selection through outsourcing apericies. Hence, contended that the memo impugned in this writ petition cannot be set-aside, The respondent admitted about the initial funding of 85% by the Central Government and 15% funding by the State Government, depending upon the budget allocation. But, share of expenditure varies from year to year. For the academic year 2015-2016, the Central Government share was 60% of the total expenditure and the remaining 40% was borne by the State Government itsel. For every financial year. the Government of India released funds to the State Implementing Society in two instalments. Le. in the months of April and September of the year and the funds thus released will be credited to the bank account of the State implementing Society and they will be utilized for various mterventions like opening of new schools, alternate schooling facilities, construction of school buildings, additional classrooms, iollets, providing drinking water, feachers, regular teacher in service training, academic resource Support, free textbooks & uniforms, support for inyproving learning activities.
tt is further contended that Sarva Siksha Abhiyan is only a project having Bo permanent posts and all the posts in the project are temperary and thus filing can only be by way of deputation/contract/ outsourcing basis. Thus, by folowing the orders HACS & MSMJ WRPHLY 381 2018 af the Government, steps are taken to fill the vacant posts on outsourcing basis in 13 districts and accordingly, the authorities have entrusted the recruitment of teaching/non-teaching posis to manpower agencies in the State. Since the project itself is termporary, no permanent employee can be appointed in any cadre Le. teaching or non-teaching staff and therefore, the alleged fraud in the absence of any details, carmot be a ground to quash the memo, Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
During hearing, Sri Karri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently corterided that, the government alone has to take up the process of recruitment on permanent basis, so that the unemployed youth will be benefitted, as Sarva Sikshya Abiyan is generating employment. If, the recruitment process is undertaken by the Siate Government, the possibilities of corruption and fraud in recruitment process can be avoided to the maximum extent and sought a direction against the Government to undertake recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff directly by the State Government, ignoring the relief actually claimed in the petition.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 contended that, entrustment to Project Officers to complete the process of selection through outsourcing agencies is only in view of the orders passed by the State Government. The State probed into the allegations published in the news items and when the news items were published complaining about fraud, and found no truth in if, consequently, the memo impugned in this writ petition was issued, though the second respondent issued a memo directing to hold the recruitment process until further orders, Enquiry was conducted only for issuance of memo by the second respondent and when the first respondent found no truth in the allegations, the impugned memo tn 6 HACT & MSMYJ WPEPILY 381 32018 this wril petition was issued, so as to gear up the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff by the outsourcing agencies, to cater the needs of the students under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme. Learned Standing Counsel specifically contended that the public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters, since recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff directly falls under service dispute and relied on two judgments of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra) and P, Seshadri v. 8S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others?. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two judgments, he requested to dismiss the writ petition, while supporting the memo impugned. issued by the first and second respondents.
lt is also contended that, based on news items, the Court canna quash the memo. since the news item published in the newspaper is only hearsay evidence. but not admissible and on the strength of such news items, this Court cannot grant relief, and requested to dismiss the petition.
Considering rival contentions. perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
i) "Whether public interest litigation can be maintained in service disputes by a practicing advocate aged 54 years, claiming to be a sacial activist?
2) Whether issue of Memo No. ESEO1-12023/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 is in violation of jJundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or in violation of fundamental duties enshrined under Article 43 of the Constitution of India. If so, whether Memo No.ESE01-
12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 is liable to be set-
"2011 YY SCALE 4] HAC & MSMJ WPULY 384 2018 aside, declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 as illegal and arbitrary?"
POLN TNO.2 The petitioner, claiming to be a practicing advocate cum social activist, fled this writ petition as public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he was aged about 54 years by the date of filing the petition, he is not ever qualified for appointment in any govermment service.
le is settled Jaw that public interest litigation is riot maintainable in service maters, including recruitment, appointment, transfers etc, An identical question came Up before the Madhuri Bench of Madras High. Court, wherein, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Mayilrajaperumal v. The Secretary to Government? considered the question as to the maintainability of public interest Mitigation.
in the facts of the above judgment, the service conditions of the drivers and conductors from the third respondent/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation were questioned, on the ground that when the drivers or conductors should work only for eight hours, the third respondent is illegally compelling to work beyond eight hours continuously and they are directed to work for more than 13 hours continuously in one trip. Such am action of the Corporation was questioned before the Madras High Court by a practicing advocate claiming to be a social activist, In paragraph 10 of the said judgment, the Court observed that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, no public interest litigation Writ Petition lie in respect of service matters. The petitioner being a practicing Advocate SAW PLM Ne 2088 of 2011 dated 07.00.2018 "
HACI & MEMS WEEPILL 3812018 is no way connected with the service of the respondent/Corporation. There are service rules for the third respondent/Corporation and as per the above said rules, employees, namely Driver-cum-Conductors are working in the third respondent/Corporation and that the information furnished by the third respondent/Corporation under Right to Information Act to the petitioner make it clear that there are 2421 drivers and 2425 conductors working in the third resporident/Corporation and totally 910 buses are running and the State Express Transport Corporation's buses are operating im 192 routes and the employees namely drivers and conductors are working & hours per day. The Court held that, based on such information, the petitioner being a practicing advocate who is unconcerned with the Government Department cannot question the same in the guise of public interest litigation.
The Madhurai Court also adverted to the judgment in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and ethers (referred supra}, whercin, the Apex Court dealt with the issue fo whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. After considering the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji basher Ahmed and others*, and the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India', the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 held as follows:
"section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person agerieved'. In order to bring a matter belare the Tribunal. an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by amy order pertaining to ary matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) 9676 *¢POg7 VISCO 671 PFNCC 261 i 9 of Section 19s0 that all matters referred to in Section 3{q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that cortent, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is mo doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an applcation before the Tribunal, If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allawed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get ceteated."
HACE & MSMJ WPI SRL GES Im Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West BengalS, the Apex Court at parasraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
} Brey "5. His necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression? public interest litigation?. In Stroud?s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.}, ?public interest? is defined thus:
Public interest.?{1) A matter of public or general interest Pdoes not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement: but that in which a class of the community have a pecumary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or Habilities are affected?"
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdary? the Apex Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is 'public interest', the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action inchiding all proceedings therein initiatect in-a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remecty, Therefore, lexically the expressiom "PIL' means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the emorcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the cornrnunity have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or Habilities are affected."
Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of.a party to a Htigation fs mandatory; because: the legal capacity of the party ta any litigation whether ir private or public action in relation to any specific remnedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
* (2004) 3 SCC 349 "1993 SCC (Cri) 36 10 HACS & MSM WEYPHLG 2812018 Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and cireumspection and the juciciary has to be extremely eareful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-sceking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory af law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischiel. Tt should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or publie tiyury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at mes fram behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such bu sybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold. and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
The Court has to be satisfied about: {a} the credentials of the applicant; (b} the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c} the information being not vague and incefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness Involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: {i) nobody should be allowed to wwedulge im wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others: and (ii) avoidance of public 4 HAC & MSM WPLPILY 381 2018 mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, lor oblique motives, justifiable executive actions, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab? the Apex Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. {vide State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu? and AP. State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills!).
No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to fille misconceived and frivolous petitions. (vide Buddhi Kota Subba Rao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran?}) The Apex Court also adverted to the principle laid down in Dr. Duryedhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra) and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (referred supra) and held as follows:
"It. is depressing to note that om account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts. irmenerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine Utigants. Though we spare no efforts m fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and ultheard: yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate pricevarices relating fo civil roatters involving properties worth ~ hundreds of millions of rupees and substaritial rights ancl criminal cases in which persons sentenced to *¢20M4) 3 SCO 363 © 1984 (23 SCC 484 "STR 1994 SCOPES) "1996 7 5C0 330 HAC & MSMI WHEPELY 387 2OE8 death facing the gallows uncer uniold agony and persons sentenced te life iraprisomment anc kept i incarceration for long years, persons saffering from undue delay in service matters " goverment or private, persons awailling the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenuc OF unauthorized collection of tax amotns are lockecl up, detenus expecting their release from. the detention orders etc. ete. are all standing im a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting inte the courts and having their grievances redressed, the pusybacies, rmmeddlesome interlopers. waylarers of officious interveners having absolutely no real pullic interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for sy ether extraneous motivation or tor glare of publicity, break the queue ruffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous. petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing arc thous criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue stancing outside the doors of the courts mever MOVES, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants."
in the judgment referred supra. the Madras High Court reviewed the entire law and concluded that. Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters, unless the applicant had any interest in the subject matter.
In the present case, the petiQoner claiming to be a practicing Advocate and social activist filed the present petition bringing to our notice that the paper clippings of news items and the inaction of the respondents 1 & 2 in taking sleps to prevent such abuse by the manpower agencies, contended that the public money of unemployed youth is being Tooted in the name of employment through outsourcing, though, the petitioner is unconcerned with such employment issues, being a practicing Advocate.
It is an undisputed fact that, prima, facie paper clippings are not admissible in, evidence, since they are hearsay evidence.
Na doubt. the news paper clippings published in the newspapers state that the respondents 1 & 2 failed to take steps to prevent such abuse by the manpower agencies, contending that the TT nt, HACI & MEMS WRYPIL} 381 2018 public money of unemployed youth is being looted in the name of employment through outsourcing agencies. but, that cannot be a ground to infer malatides on the part of respondents 1 & 2. The news iterms published in the daily is inadmissible in evidence and based on such news items, the Court cannot infer such malafides om the part of respondents 1 & 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Borgaram Deuri v. Premodhar Boral, wherein, the Apex Court basing an the principle laid down in Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta and others! and also in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court!, eoncluded that, Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Thereiore, based on such news items, till it is proved by satisfactory evidence, the Court cannot draw any inference from the news items.
In any view of the matter, based on the news items published in. the newspapers annexed to the petition, cannot form the basis to conclude that respondents 1 & 2 failed to take steps against the manpower agencies who are alleged to have been looting public money of unemployed youth, in the name of employment through outsourcing agencies. Hence, on the basis of news iterns, it is difficult to accept the malafides attributed to the respondents 1 to 2.
Therefore, based on the news items in the news papers, reaction of the second respondent directing the Project Officers not. to hold the selection proéess of teaching and non-teaching staff in Sarva Sikshya Abhyan Scheme. temporarily is a haste decision of the * (2004) 2 SCC 227 "1994 Supp 13) SCC S (2008) 8 SCC 10h Sey RAGS & MSMI WPOPIL) 381 208 authorities. but. it is in the interest of public good. However, after tnaking necessary enquiry. the first respondent noticed that there were no such corrupt practices as alleged by this petitioner. This pelitioner did not produce prima facie evidence to substantiate his contention that public money is being looted, in terms of law declared by the Apex Court and for entertaining such public interest litigations, examination of credentials of the petitioner in necessary.
If, they are taken into consideration, it would certainly show that the petitioner who is claiming to be a practicing Advocate approached this Court with an intention to popularise bimself being an activist and publicise the same.
The Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others!> had an occasion to deal with the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation. wherein High Court allowed Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner and quashed appointment of the appellant as Chairman of State Electricity Board and directed the State Government to made fresh appointment to the post of Chairman of Board in place of appellant. The Court while reiterating the principles laid in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra}. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal {referred supra) and reviewing the other judgments helct that Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in employment or service matters.
In Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. BK.K. Mission V. Centenary College and others!§, the Supreme Court while adverting to judgments in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra), P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal AIR 2OLQSE 3815 (3011) 8 SCC 464 sense 15 HACY & MSM) WPEPILZ 381 2018 Reddy and others (referred supra) and other judgments, held as follows:
"The High Court has cammitted a serious error in permitting Kespondert. Ne. 2 ta pursue the writ petition as a public interest Nligation. The parameters within which Public Interest Litigation carn he entertained by this Court and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated by this Court in a series af cases. By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does nol apprave of an approach that waulel ereourage petitions filecl far achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild arid reckless allegations. mace by individuats, ie. busybocies: having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective af the Petitioner Nave to be. apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is Nable to be dismissed at the thresholc."
Hf, these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, before aciverting, the Court has to examine the object behind this litigation as the petitioner had no interest either direct or indirect. atleast a remote interest in the litigation.
In the present facis of the case, the proceedings were issued to undertake appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhyan, which is purely temporary in nature. The Central Government contributes part of amount and the balance shall be borne by the State Government to run the schools with teachers, as per the norms referred in the earlier paragraphs. The scheme is purely temporary in nature and when the scheme is temporary, the Court meed not undertake impact assessment on account of such appointments. More particularly. the financial burden is on the State if they were allowed to continue in service after expiry of scheme. When temporary governmental schemes are arganized for students and selection process is taken up by the respondents through! manpower agencies, selection cannot be questioned as it purely a dispute of employment, which cannot be decided in Public Interest Litigation, in view of the law declared by the . | . 16 HACS & M&M3 WEPILG SSE 2018 Apex in the judgments referred supra, more particularly, when the petitioner has no remotest interest in litigation, it is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for personal vendetta. Therefore, the Court shall exercise its power to curb such public interest litigation against a person who is claiming to be a social activist and practicing advocate at the threshold. Uf, such Public Interest Litigations are not nipped at the bud, it will multiply and devouring most of the valuable Courts time. thereby preventing the courts from a concentrating in deciding real disputes where the public valuable rights are involved. Therefore. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts referred supra, we find that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation, which is purely a dispute regarding mode of selection of temporary teaching and non-teaching staff of the State is mot maintainable. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. POINT NO.2 The main relief claimed by this petitioner in this petition is to quash the Memo No.ESEO1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018. The petitioner did not challenge the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff through outsourcing agency Le manpower agency notified by the District Collector, But only questioned the Memo No. ESE0Q1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018. whereby the first respondent directed the Project. Director to cormplete selection process of teaching and non-teaching staff. If the memo is quashed or set-aside, again respondents 1 & 2 may issue and pass appropriate arders directing the Project Officers to complete the selection process, HACER MSMI WPL) 381 2018 in view of the urgent need of the staff members, more particularly about the teaching staff to cater to the needs of the students who are prosecuting their studies, as annual examinations are fast approaching. When the respondents issued directions to the Project Directors ta undertake selection for the posts of teaching and non- teaching staff, in view of the State Government Policy, for outsourcing of temporary staff, the Memo No.ESEO1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 cannot be set-aside, since ft is only direction issued by the respondents to the Project Directors.
Through serious allegations of fraud are made based on news items, as stated above, the news items are not admissible in evidence and they do not form the basis for entertaining such public interest litigations and unless those allegations are supported by any prima facie material. In the present facts of the case, in view of publication of news items in papers alleging corrupt practices by manpower agencies, the second respondent issued Memo No.ESEO1- 12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 directing the Project Officers to hold the selection process. But, after making necessary enquiry as to truth in the allegations covered by news items, having found no truth in those allegations, issued the present Memo No. ESEO1- 12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition. Even now, the petitioner did not substantiate the allegation that the manpower agencies playing fraud on the unemployed youth by collecting huge amount for selecting them as teaching and nan- teaching staff. Such allegations can be proved atleast by filing notarized affidavits of those who paid the amount to the manpower agencies as bribe or any tangible material to substantiate such allegation. Obviously for the reasons best known io the petitioner, made reckless allegations to sling mud on the government and its HAH & MSM WRPEL) 38s S018 instrumentalities, as the petitioner resorted to unethical practice and appears to be a busy body.
During hearing, though the learned counsel for the respondents made serious allegations against this petitioner that he demanded two posts at Srikakulam District for the persons interested by him and when the Project Director refused, he resorted to this litigation. But, this allegation is not supported by any material. Consequently, based on such vague unsubsiantiated allegation, the petition fled by this petitioner cannot be thrown overhead. However, it is evident from the contention of this petitioner that, this petition is fled obviously with a motive to popularise himself in the District, mostly among the persons who applied for appointment through Manpower agencies in the Scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhyan and thus, the Htigation can be described as Publicity Interested Litigation rather than Public interest Litigation. as the petitioner's credentials are deubtful and has no remotest interest in the litigation, as no pubic interest is involved. [f, lor any reason, Memo No.ESEO1-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 is quashed and recruitment process is stalled through manpower agencies. it would not only seriously affect the carrier of the candidates selected for the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, but also adversely affects the studies of the children who are prosecuting their studies. The interests of children will cutweigh the interest of public. In the absence of ary public injury, fl is dificult to quash Mera No. ESEO1-12029 / 96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018, which is Consequential directions issued by the respondents to the Project Directors.
Mn view of our foregoing discussion, we hold that the Public Interest Litigation under Article 296 of the Constitution of India in employment or service disputes, incliding selection process and mode ?
1S ' ae HAC & MSMI WPCPILG S81 2018 af selection is not maintainable and the Memo No.ESEO1L-
12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 cannot be quashed or set-aside, at this stage, more particularly, when the academic year is coming to close within short time. Consequently. the writ petition is Hable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand cHismisseci.
Sd/- K. MURALI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY! hae SECTION OFFICER To, " 9LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Defhi.
The Secretary, Advocate Association Library, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
One CC to Sri. Karri Suryanarayana, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri. G. seena Kumar, Advocate {(OPUC)} Two CC to GP for Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) Two CD Copies.
NOUR | Nb HIGH COURT DATED: 93/03/2019 ORDER WPY{PIL).No.3814 of 2018 Dismissing the WP(PIL) Without costs, Pen RINT SN ARR TAG NE LARA oe le ne ire 1 CEERI cua