Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Daya Ram vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 6 October, 2016

Bench: Chief Justice, Sandeep Sharma

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                CWP No. 2612 of 2016
                      Date of decision: 06.10.2016




                                                                      .
     __________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________





     Daya Ram                                 .....Petitioner
                            Versus
     The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....Respondents





     ___________________________________________________
     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice




                                            of
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma,
                                     Sharma, Judge
     Whether approved for reporting?1                      Yes
         ________________________ _________________
     For the petitioner :                Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate.
                  rt
     For the respondents:                Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Varun
                                         Chandel,   Additional    Advocate

                                         Generals with Mr. Kush Sharma,
                                         Deputy Advocate General.

     Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation.

2. The subject matter of the petition is the service matter. The question is -whether the writ will lie?

3. The public interest litigation in service matter is not maintainable, as held by the Apex Court in case titled as Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. versus State of M.P. & Ors., 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

reported in 2010 AIR SCW 7001 and by this Court in CWP No. 3131 of 2014, titled as Dr. J.S. Chauhan versus State of .

Pradesh and others, decided on 6th May, 2016. Himachal Pradesh

4. It is apt to reproduce paras 14 and 16 of the judgment in Girjesh Shrivastava's case (supra) herein:

"14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) of 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 rt opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention.

15. .............

16. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 78 SCC 273 : (AIR 1999 SC 114 : 1998 AIR SCW 3467), a three Judge Bench of this Court held 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 or 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."

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek .

appropriate remedy.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

     October 6, 2016                       (Sandeep Sharma)
                                                    Sharma)




                                of
      (hemlata)                                 Judge.
                                                Judge.


              rt









                                      ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:22:31 :::HCHP