Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Nag vs Human Resource Development on 21 August, 2015
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, P.P Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
-----
W.P.(PIL) No. 5956 of 2013
--------
Pradeep Nag, Son of Sri Ganesh Shankar Nag, C/o- Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, income Tax colony, Type- II/25, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi.
...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Post office-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, P.O.- G.P.O.- P.S.- Lalpur, Ranchi.
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Lalpur, Ranchi.
5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, P.O.- g.P.O., P.S.-
Lalpur, Ranchi. .....Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P BHATT
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1&2 : Mr. Rishi Pallava, J.C. to A.A.G. For the Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
-------
st 10/Dated: 21 August, 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J.
1. Mr. Piprawall has placed on record a counter affidavit copy thereof has been provided to Mr. Rajeev Kumar also.
2. The instant petition as styled (Public Interest Litigation) is otherwise not maintainable. Our view gets support from the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Girjesh Srivastava & Ors. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(2010) 10 SCC 707], wherein in paragraph Nos. 15 to 18, it is held as;
"15. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra ((1998) 7 SCC 273) a three Judge Bench of this Court held that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held:
(SCC p. 281, para 18) "18. ... 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."
Same reasoning applies here as a public interest litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.
16. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. ((2006) 11 SCC
731) this Court held that in service matters only the nonappointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure see SCC p. 755, para 51 of the Report).
17. This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590)] by pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu ((1998) 7 SCC 273), PILs in service matters "continue unabated". This Court opined that the High Courts should "throw out" such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu ((1998) 7 SCC 273) (SCC p. 596, para 16).
18. Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.[(2004) 3 SCC 349)] (SCC at p. 358, para 16)."
3. Dismissed accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Brajesh/