PILs In Service Matters Not Maintainable, Apex Court's Earlier Ruling Still Prevails: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Relying on Supreme Court's precedent, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that Public Interest Initigation (PIL) on service matters is not maintainable.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri referring to Apex Court's decision in Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors said, "it reveals that the issue as to whether a service matter can be entertained by way of Public Interest Litigation was though categorized as debatable issue but left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Therefore, there was no adjudication on the said issue and thus, this Court has no manner of doubt that the prevailing law on the issue which is evident from the earlier judgments...holds the field."

The Supreme Court in 2023 in Pratap Singh Bist (supra), while hearing an appeal arising out of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, expressed doubt on its dictum that PIL is “not at all” maintainable in Service Matters while terming the same as “debatable issue”. Accordingly, the Court had kept the issue open and the same is to be decided in the appropriate case.

In the present case the bench was hearing a PIL for quashing advertisement issued for filling-up the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group-B) in Health & Ayush Department, Haryana, raising the ground that the State has though advertised vacancies for Orthopaedically Handicapped (OH) but not for other handicapped categories, "which tantamounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution and Section 20 of the Disability Act, 2016; with a further prayer to direct respondents to re-advertise the posts."

Perusing the plea, the Court said, "looking to the facts raised and the relief sought, it is obvious that the issue raised in this PIL relates to service dispute."

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in the cases of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar, (1998) 7 SCC 273; Neetu Vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590; and Vishal Ashok Thorat and others vs. Rajesh Shripambapu and others, (2020) 18 SCC 675, to underscore that, "a service dispute cannot be raised by way of a Public Interest Litigation."

In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case, the Apex Court said, "It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so-called public interest litigations where even 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 large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. 1998 (4) SCT 213 (SC), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of 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 (pleas) out on the basis of the said decision, the Supreme Court had added.

Relying on the above precedents, the Court held that the present PIL is not maintainable.

Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Dr. Neha Awasthi, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HPSC.

Title: Sourabh v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170

Click here to read/download the order