LI Network
Published on: November 10, 2023 at 15:25 IST
The Supreme Court, during its proceedings expressed reservations about the notion that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are “not at all” maintainable in service matters. The Court considered this assertion a debatable issue and decided to keep it open for further consideration in a suitable case.
The matter came before a division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta.
In this case, Pratap Singh Bist filed a writ petition in 2017 as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointments of respondents (from 5 to 17) to the post of Teachers in 2008 under the Directorate of Education, New Delhi. The petitioner contended that these appointees did not possess the required qualifications for the position.
However, the Delhi High Court, in its impugned judgment, declined to interfere with these appointments. The High Court thoroughly examined the affidavits submitted by the respondents and concluded that the necessary qualifications were met, thereby affirming the eligibility of respondents (from 5 to 17) for the teaching post.
Notably, the High Court, in its judgment, also made the observation that “a PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters” based on a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others (1998).
The petitioner pursued a Review petition before the High Court, but it met a similar fate, leading to the case’s presentation before the Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the appointments of respondents (from 5 to 17), it raised questions about the maintainability of PILs in service matters. The Court expressed:
“However, the second reason assigned by the High Court, namely, that ‘PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters’ in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and Others (1998) 7 SCC 273, is a debatable issue, and the said question of law is kept open, to be gone into in an appropriate case.”
The decision in Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 was contemplative: “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.”
This development highlights the ongoing debate on whether PILs should be maintainable in service matters and sets the stage for potential legal scrutiny in future cases.
