HEGH CGURT OF CHHATHSGARH A? BELASPUR §iVi$EON BENCH CQRNV?‘ HGN’ELE SHRI RAJEE’V’ GUPTA, CJ. HGN’BLE $HRE SUN“. KUMAR §RNHA3 J. Writ Patition No. 441 812395 1 Rajkamal Singhaniya, PEWEQNERS Aged about 56 years, S/o Late Sim Jeevan La! $inghania, RXo 151489, Rajbhawan Marg, SM} Lines, Raigmr (Chhattisgagh) Chhatmsai $ahu, Aged about 44 years, Member — Janpad Panchayat, Bi§aiga§h, s/o Shri Ramial Sahu, Tehsii Biiaégarh, District Raipur Versas R§SPQMQEETS 1 . $iate 0f Chhattisgarh, Thraugh the Secreiary, Deparimem af Panchayat & Rura; Deveiopmenf, State af Chhattiegarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director or Pubife inetruc‘rieras‘ Chhattisgerh Raipur (Chhartisgarh) Corlecror Rainur (Chhatiisgarh) Districr Educaticn afficer} Kase‘er District Raipur {Chhattigarh) Btock Education Officer Biiaigarh Distrtct Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Janpad Pancheyat, Bitaigarh, Threagh the Chief Executive Officer, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisionai Otttcer. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) M Ci) Writ Petition under Articies 226:??? {2f the Censtitutien of indie Present : Shri Ma‘tin $iddiqui, counsei for ttre petitieners. Shri YS Thakur, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State! respondents No.1 to 5 & 7. Sim Sandeep Dubey, oounsei for respondent No.6. ORDER (04m March, 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Ra§e$v Gugta, CJ. Learned counsel fm the parties are heard on admission. 2) The oetitioners claiming themseives to be social workers have filed thiS writ petition otyied a$ Public interest Litigation for the foiiowing reliefs : 1. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 2. To kindiy iesue writ of certiorari quashing all the appointments made by the respondent Jenead Panohayet with regard to recruitment of Shiksha Karmi Grade 3. 3. To kindly issue writ of manejamus directing the resporio‘ents to conduct fresh seiection/reeruitment in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 1997 in a fair and transparent manner. 4. 'i‘o kindiy make any other order that may be deerneci fit and iust in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding oi the costs to the petitioner. 3) The petitioners in substance are seeking quashing of the appointments made by respondent No.6 - danpad Panchayat, V Biiaigarh, District Raiourto the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-iii. 4) Shri Sandeep Dubey, teamed counsei for respondent No.6 placing reliance on the dictum of the Hon’hie Apex Court in the case oi Gurgai Singh vs State ot Puniab and others: regerted in, AIR 29%. Sugreme Court 2?5§, has raised a pteiirninary objection about the maintainabiiity of thewrit petition on the ground that a writ petition as Pit. is not to be entertained in a service matter. / 7/ //’\ 5) heid in para 6 to 8 that : “6, The scope of entertaining a petition styied as a pubiic interest Iitigation, ‘ocus standi of the peiitioner particulmiy in matters invoiving service of an empioyee has been examined by this Ccurt in various cases. The Court has t0 be satisfied about (a) the credentiais of the appiicant; (i3) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indennite. The information should show gravity and sericusness invoived. Court has to strike balance between two confticting interests; (i) nobody shoutd be --atlowed to indulge in wild and reckless aliegations besmifchin‘g the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assaii, for obiique motives, justifiabie executive actions. ln such case, however, the Court cannot afford to ioe liberai. it has to be extremeiy oarefui to see that under the guise of redressing a pubiic grievance, it does not encroach upon the Sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while deaiing with imposters and busy bodies or meddiesome interiopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and orevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the sociai baiance by interfering where necessary for the sake of iustice and refuse to interfere where it is against the sociai interest and pubiic good (See State otMaharashtra v. Prabhu (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financiai Corporation v. Mrs. Gar Re-Roiiing Miiis and. another (Ara i994 so 2151). No iiiigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and pubiic money in order to get his affairs settied in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to iustice should not be misused as a iicence to fiie misconceived and frivoious petitions. (See Dr. BK. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran (1896 (7) JT 265). Today oeopie rush to Courts to fiie cases in profusion under this attractive name of pubiic interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. As note supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest iitigations are in essence something eise. lt is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so éaiied public interest iitigations where even a minuscule percentage can iegitimateiy be oaiied as pubiic interest iitigations. Though the parameters of public interest iitigation have been indicated by this court in large number of cases, yet The Apex Court in the case of Gurpai $ing_h {Supra}. i i unmindfui of the reai intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuabie judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utiiized for disposal of genuine cases, Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and‘others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (AER 1999 SC 1.14), this Court held that in service matters PlLs should nai be entertained, ihe infiow of so called PlLs involving service matters continues unabated in ihe Courts and strangely are entertained. The ieast the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PlLs, officiai documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. in one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. it was stated that a oacket was tying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the officiai documents. Whenever such frivolous pieas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do weli not oniy to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. it would be desirabie for the Courts to hlter out the frivoious petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforesaid so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions fiied with obiique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.“ 6i in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court the writ petition filed by the petitioners as Pit. chalienging the appointments made by respondent No.6 to the post of Shiksha Karma Grade—lit is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed I summariiy. Sd/- sdl- i, Sunil Kumar Sinha V Chief Justice Judge Judge