CWP NO. 7115 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 29 .5.2009 Dr.Jagpreet Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. The petitioner is a Doctor and has filed this petition seeking a direction against respondent no.2 to conduct the process of selection for the post of Medical Officers in a fair and transparent manner by issue of the selection criteria and the break up of marks for educational qualifications and interview. It is stated in this writ petition that respondent no.2 issued advertisement dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) for filling up 100 vacancies of Medical Officers in various categories. It is alleged that no criteria has been specified in the advertisement. In the advertisement published, it was provided that in case of large number of applications, the short-listing may CWP NO. 7115 OF 2009 2 be done, but despite this condition more than 2200 applications were received and and all eligible candidates have been called for interview. The petitioner further states that due to announcement of the Lok Sabha election, respondent no.2 vide letter dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) sought clarification from the Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh regarding the continuation of the interviews. The Chief Electoral Officer sought certain information from respondent no.2 and on receipt of the information, the Chief Electoral Officer vide its letter dated 5.3.2009 approved the continuation of process of selection with a condition that the final appointment orders should be issued after the completion of the election process. The petitioner also applied under the RTI Act to disclose the criteria regarding selection process and the petitioner was informed that the criteria for making selection is kept confidential. It is alleged that respondent no.2 resorted to pick and choose policy, hence this petition has been filed. At the first instance, there is no specific allegation regarding infirmities, irregularities or illegalities in the selection process. Secondly, the petitioner is not even an applicant. It is alleged in paragraph 2 that the petitioner is public spirited person and is filing this petition for conduct of the selection in a fair and transparent manner. Such a petition is totally devoid of any merit. Even if it is assumed that the petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, it does not fall within the parameters set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments where the service matters are involved. In the case of Dr.B.Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2004 (3) SCC 363 regarding the duty of the courts in matters of Public Interest Litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- CWP NO. 7115 OF 2009 3 “14.The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public 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 dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers 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.” CWP NO. 7115 OF 2009 4 In the case of Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC, 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further examined the parameters for Public Interest Litigation by observing as under:- “10.Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. CWP NO. 7115 OF 2009 5 Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” In the present case, the petitioner has not shown any reason or basis for approaching this Court. Otherwise also from the averments made in the petition, it seems that the purpose and object for filing this petition is either to gain publicity or to stall the process of selection for ulterior motives and without any factual or legal basis. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Though I am inclined to impose costs, but Mr.Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this is the first such petition filed by the present petitioner, and therefore, I refrain from burdening the petitioner with costs, but with a warning not to indulge in such frivolous and unnecessary litigation in future. I hope the petitioner will follow the advice of this court. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE Prounounced on: 29.5.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES