Allahabad High Court
Rubi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 August, 2020
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 32 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 746 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rubi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Qambar Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
( Per: Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
1. Heard Shri Ali Qambar Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.
2. This Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) under Article 226 of the Constituton of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers;
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of QUO WARRANTO thereby declaring the appointment of respondnt no.5 as null and void and directing the State to remove respondent no.5 from the office of stenographer at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar;
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the State to terminate the services of respondent no.5 with immediate effect and issue fresh advertisements as prescribed by the relevant service rules;
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the State to constitute a high level committee to enquire into the matter of illegal appointment of respondent no.5 to the post of stenographer at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar;
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the State to take appropriate action, penal or otherwise against such persons who are found complicit in the illegal appointment of respondent no.5;
V. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case AND VI. award cost of the petition to the petitioner.
3. This Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) has been filed by the petitioner who is a member of Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar and was elected from Khatauli Block. The petitoner made an averments in the writ petition that being a public representative , the petitioner is bound to discharge her duty with utmost sincerity and vigilance and to put forth any misdoing or corrupt practice before the concerned appropriate authority. The petitioner believes that if on the basis of material on record, the appointment assailed in the present petition is cancelled by this Hon'ble Court then it would open way for fresh recruitment which in turn would benefit bonafide aspirants. He further submits that by way of present PIL, the petitioner seeks to highlight complete disregard to the existing laws, rules and guidelines with respect to an appointment made at the office of Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagr. The petitioner seeks to invite the attention of this Hon'ble Court towards the appointment of Respondent NO.5 who, over a period of time, has been regularized on the permanent post of stenographer. Not only the existing rules with respect to appointment on such post were deliberately flouted by the Zila Panchayat (respondent No.3) but also the orders/directions of the State Government were maliciously interpreted to extend unjust benefits to respondent No.5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further made averments in the writ petition that respondent No.5 Shri Akshay Kumar Sharma got compassionate appointment as Grade II clerk on 15.12.1993 at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar in furtherance of order passed the then District Magistrate/ Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha.
5. Further vide order dated 3.12.2002, the AMA- Zila Panchayat issues an appointment letter to respondent no.5 at the post of stenographer on ad-hoc and temporary basis. No selection committee was constituted for the purpose of this appointment, which was made by the order of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat. This appointment order was totally contrary to the directions given by the government on 2.11.2002.
6. Upon perusal of the averments made in the public interest litigation and documents appended thereto, the petitioner seeks direction declaring the appointment of respondent no.5 as null and void and directing the State to remove respondent no.5 from the office of Stenographer at Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar.
7. When maintainability of the present public interest litigation (writ petition), in service matters, was raised by us no suitable reply was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant PIL was raised by the learned Standing Counsel and submitted that in service matter PIL is no longer res-integra, lacks bonafide and rather it is a proxy petition.
8. After consideration of the aforesaid submission of the respondents, we consider it appropriate to take the question of maintainability of the PIL (writ petition) as a preliminary issue before we go to the merit of the case and, accordingly, the parties are heard on this preliminary issue.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to give a reasonable answer to our querries when the Court made a pointed query as to the availability of any decision of the Apex Court on the maintainability of PIL, in service matters, no such authority is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner.
10. For adjudicating this issue, we have to go back in the year 1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, 1998 (7) SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue, as to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal and held that in service matter PIL should not be entertained, the inflow of so called PILs involving service matter continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. After considering the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe in para 18, 19 and 21 as follows:-
18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any 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) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
19. Our attention has been drawn to a judgement of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia Versus State of Orissa 1996. (1) OLR (CSR)-2. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held 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. The following passage in the judgement is relevant: "....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that 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. It does not enjoy any plenary power." We agree with the above reasoning.
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.?
11. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
"5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression public interest litigation. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), public interest is defined thus:
Public interest.(1) A matter of public or general interest does 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 pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
6. In Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), public interest is defined as follows:
Public interest. Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.?
7. In Janata Dal case (1992 (4) SCC 305 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 36) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, this Court has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331, para 53) The expression litigation means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ?PIL? means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
8. In para 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.
334) ?Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.?
9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109). It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.
11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in 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 unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters? government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling 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 and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of 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 mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury 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 times from 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
14. 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 indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public- spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
15. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and dire consequences.
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, whereas only 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 a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times 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, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the 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. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. 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. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. 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, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. 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."
12. In Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
13. In Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, JT 2005 (5) SC 389, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
14. In Indian Consumers Welfare Council vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the abovesaid Council, filed a public interest writ petition, challenging a notification, issued by the 2nd respondent therein, by which, applications were invited, from degree holders, with degree in education, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent therein, to appoint only those teachers, who were trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1st to 7th standards, to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. Following the decision in Gopal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 J.T. [5] SC 389, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered as follows:-
"This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being Gopal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005 J.T. [5] SC 389. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed."
15. In N.Veerasamy vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 564, while considering a public interest litigation filed by a treasurer of a political party, praying to take action again Mrs.Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the fifth respondent therein, under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for allegedly making allegations against a leader of a political party, following the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
"It is settled law that no writ in the form of public interest litigation will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. The extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in matters of this kind is required to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary cases." "The service matters are essentially between the employer and the employee and it would be for the State to take action under the Service Rules and there is no question of any public interest involved in such matters."
"The petition is not only not maintainable either in law of facts but also would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
16. In B.Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and others, 2006 (11) SCC 731, at paragraph 61, the Apex Court held that in service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure.
17. In Neetu vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2007 (10) SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.? Referring to the decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable."
18. In Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) SCC 290, the Apex Court restated that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
19. In Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, 2010 (9) SCC 655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik Leader, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, challenging the appointment of Mr.Hari Bansh Lal, who was appointed, as the Chairman of Jharkand State Electricity Board. The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed his appointment, which gave rise to an appeal, before the Apex Court. Addressing the issue, as to whether a public interest writ petition, is maintainable in service matters, following the earlier decisions in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349) and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- PIL in service matters:
"11)About maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the Members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in sub-section (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the vigilance department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence.
12)We have already pointed out that the person who approached the High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be considered as a Member or Chairman of the Board but according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik Leader. Either before the High Court or in this Court, he has not placed any material or highlighted on what way he is suitable and eligible for that post.
..............
The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 363, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 and Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
15)The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters."
20. In Girjesh Shrivastava and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2010 (10) SCC 707, appointments were challenged in PIL, on the grounds of contravention of rules, regarding reservation of ex- servicemen. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered cancellation of appointments, and dismissed the review petitions also. While considering the issue, as to whether the matter ought to have been taken, as service dispute and not PIL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a catena of decisions, at paragraphs 14 to 19 has held as follows:-
"14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) 1520/2001 and WP (C) 63/2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention.
15. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter.
16. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three judge Bench please to hold a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held "if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the (Administrative) Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated" (para 18). Same reasoning applies here as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.
17. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), this Court held that in service matters only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure (See para 61, page 755 of the report).
18. This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590, by pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (supra), PILs in service matters `continue unabated'. This Court opined that High Courts should `throw out' such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (supra) (Para 16, page 596).
19. Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, at page 358 (Para 16)"
In Soma Velandi vs. Dr.Anthony Elangovan, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 8, following Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in JT 2005 (5) SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters."
21. In Bholanath Mukherjee and others vs. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 464, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction to set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent therein, as Principal, was sought for, as the 3rd respondent was junior, to them, and did not have the requisite qualification. Reiterating the legal position that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to entertain the challenge to the notices issued to Ramakrishna Mission to reconstitute the committees.
22. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013 (4) SCC 465. At paragraphs 14 and 15, the Apex Court, observed as follows:-
"14.This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, ?ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it.
15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)"
23. At this juncture, we deem it is necessary to extract Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:-
"141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.-- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."
24. In view of the above, when Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) is not maintainable in service matters and time and again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of decisions as referred above, the present Public Interest Litigation (writ petition) is not maintainable in law and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2020 SFH