1 PIL-70/2010 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.70 OF 2010 Shri R.R. Tripathi ...........Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...........Respondents Petitioner appearing in person present. Mr. Ravi M. Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for respondent State. D.B. Mistry, Mr. Afroz Shah and V.J. Mehta, for respondent No.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2010 P.C. The petitioner who is a lawyer by profession and also claims to be a Journalist has filed the petition purporting to be a Public Interest Petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.2- Shri Shivanandan, IPS., to the post of Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has challenged the selection process conducted by the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra on the ground that the Committee has overlooked the seniority of two Director General level officers who were senior to respondent No.2 and that the Committee should be 2 PIL-70/2010 called upon to explain why it was not possible to select the two Director General level officers in the State and why they have not been considered to be competent enough to be promoted and whether the posting of respondent No.2 was as a result of favourtism. 2. As per the settled legal position a Public Interest Petition should not be entertained in respect of service matters. The petitioner, however, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Center for Public Interest Litigation and Another v. Union of India and Another, decided on 6th October, 2005 in support of the contention that Public Interest Petitions could be entertained in service matters also. 3. A perusal of the above judgment indicates that the Court did refer to the contention that Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained in relation to service matters and in any event a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued. 4. While disposing of the petition, the Apex Court did not think it necessary to deal with the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition (para.16 of the Judgment) for the reasons indicated in the judgment, but the Court did refer to the fact that Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) had filed a charge sheet against the concerned Officer before a Special Court for obtaining sanction from the C.B.I. After the charge sheets were filed the concerned Officer has made an application for discharge, which was rejected. The order rejecting the prayer for discharge was at the relevant time pending before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court had directed stay of further proceedings as the question of challenge to absence of 3 PIL-70/2010 sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was raised before the High Court. 5. The Apex Court had even appointed a Commission under a retired Judge of the Apex Court to go into the various questions relating to allotment of plots and also the issue as to why the disciplinary action had been dropped against several officers including the concerned officer who was ultimately promoted as the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was in the context of the above facts that the Court considered the issues arising in that case and expressed opinion about the manner in which the selection process was conducted in that case. In the facts of the present case all that the petitioner is relying upon is the newspaper reports about the conduct of the respondent No.2 and the contention that senior officers were overlooked without valid reasons. 6. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors., Judgments Today 2004 (3) SC 127 wherein the Apex Court has laid down the parameters of Public Interest Litigation in such matters. The Apex Court observed that when the petitioner is not having even remote link to the issues involved and relying upon newspaper report without ascertaining the authenticity or otherwise of the newspaper reports public interest petition cannot be entertained for the purpose of going into the merits of the appointments. 7. Having heard the petitioner as a party in person and having heard the learned Advocate General for the State Government, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the petition 4 PIL-70/2010 purporting to be public interest petition should be entertained and what appears to be a service matter where officers superseded by the respondent No.2 are not shown to have initiated any proceedings. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but we clarify that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the selection process or whether the superseded officers had any legitimate claim against their supersession. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J