Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 15523 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** KERALA STATE BOARD OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF INDIA, KERALA STATE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BAIJU JOHN @ BAIJU, KOTTARAKKARA, S/O. LATE BABY JOHN, AGED 56 YEARS, PRESIDENT, RESIDING AT NEST, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPPUZHA P. O., KOCHI - 683517. BY ADV. SHRI B.MOHANLAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AIS -C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. - 4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. - 5 S. SREEJITH I.P.S. NOW WORKING AS TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023., (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014) WP(C):15523/2022 -:2:- 6 SRI. SHAIK DARVESH SAHEB I.P.S. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIMES), POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADV. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C):15523/2022 -:3:- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2022 ## **S. Manikumar, CJ** Instant Public Interest Litigation is directed against Exhibit-P4 order of the 3[rd] respondent - Principal Secretary to the Government, General Administration (AIS-C) Department, Thiruvananthapuram, displacing the 5[th] respondent from the supervision of the investigation in Crime No.297/2017 registered at the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam district, pending as S.C. No.118/2019 on the file of Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI- III), Ernakulam, without any reason and posted him as Transport Commissioner vide order dated 22.04.2022. Consequently, the 6[th] respondent was transferred and posted in the place of respondent No.5 to conduct investigation of the above crime. 2. Petitioner, stated to be a public spirited person and a Film Director, and also the President of Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council, Mumbai, is agitating against the alleged shabby conduct of the investigation in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station. He has submitted that the State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthakkad, WP(C):15523/2022 -:4:- Thiruvananthapuram - 4[th] respondent, by Exhibit-P3 order dated 7.1.2022 reconstituted the Special Investigation Team for investigation in respect of Crime No.297/2017 under the direct supervision of Mr. S. Sreejith I.P.S.- 5[th] respondent, now working as Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. He further stated that the 3[rd] respondent - Principal Secretary to the Government, Home and Vigilance Department, Thiruvananthapuram, without permitting the 5[th] respondent - Mr.S.Sreejith I.P.S., Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, to complete his tenure of 2 years, to supervise the investigation in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, displaced him from the post, without any reason and transferred him as Transport Commissioner vide impugned order and that Mr. Shalik Darvesh Saheb I.P.S., Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram - 6[th] respondent, is transferred and posted in the place of 5[th] respondent, to conduct the investigation of the above crime. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Exhibit-P5 representation dated 27.4.2022 before respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. Petitioner has contended that in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that removal/displacement/transfer of an officer from a WP(C):15523/2022 -:5:- sensitive tenure post, before expiry of the tenure of two years, required serious consideration and good reasons that can be tested, so that the officer is not dealt with as a pawn in a game. 5. Referring to Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, petitioner has submitted that the Government shall ensure a minimum tenure of 2 years for the Police Officers posted as State Police Chief, Inspectors General in charge of Ranges, Superintendent of Police or Commissioners-in-charge of Police Districts, and Station House Officers. 6. Going by Exhibit-P3 order, the 4[th] respondent - State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, reconstituted the Special Investigation Team to conduct investigation in Crime No.297/2017 on the file of Nedumbassery Police Station, under the direct supervision of respondent No.5, in a sensitive post on 07.01.2022. According to the petitioner, 2 years' tenure of the 5[th] respondent will expire only on 06.01.2024 and Exhibit-P4 order is not having any legal backing in the eye of law. 7. According to the petitioner, removal from a tenure post would be tragic, if this Court would come to a conclusion that removal of a person from a sensitive, but tenure appointment based on a Statute is the WP(C):15523/2022 -:6:- prerogative of the Government and a judicial review is not available merely because, the post concerned is a sensitive one. According to him, if such a view was to hold the field, Article 14 of the Constitution - the citizen's struggle against executive arbitrariness, would become irrelevant and this court would be surrendering its constitutional obligation. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: - (i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 from the 3[rd] respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 order of the respondents displacing the 5[th] respondent from the supervision of the investigation of Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station in Ernakulam District pending as S.C.No.118/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI-III) Ernakulam, without permitting the 5[th] respondent to complete 2 years of tenure and posted the 6[th] respondent in the place of the 5[th] respondent to conduct supervision of the investigation of the crime. - (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 4 to cancel Exhibit-P4 order of the 3[rd] respondent displacing the 5[th] respondent from the supervision of the investigation of Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, now pending as S.C No.118/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI-III), Ernakulam, without permitting the 5[th] respondent to complete 2 years of tenure and posted the 6[th] respondent in the place of the 5[th] respondent to conduct supervision of the Investigation of the crime. - (iii) To declare that the 5[th] respondent is entitled to continue supervision of the investigation in Crime No.297/2017 of the Nedumbassery Police Station, now pending as S.C No.118/2018 on the file of Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI-III), WP(C):15523/2022 -:7:- Ernakulam, as per Exhibit-P3 order, to complete 2 years of tenure to conduct supervision of the investigation of the crime. - (iv) To declare that Exhibit-P4 order issued by the 3[rd] respondent is illegal and in exercise of its jurisdiction. 8. Refuting the averments contained in the writ petition, a statement is filed by the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram – the 4[th] respondent, wherein it is contended that the petitioner - Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council certified by the National Human Rights Commission of India, Kerala State Board, represented by its President, has not averred that it is a registered association. Therefore, according to the 4[th] respondent, the petitioner should be put to strict proof as regards the competency to file this writ petition. 9. Respondent No.4 has further contended that transfer of a Government Servant from one post to another is an incidence of service and the right to challenge the transfer is only on the person aggrieved by such transfer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Duryodhan Sahu** v. **Jitendra Kumar Misra** [(1998) 7 SCC 273] held that Public Interest Litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger should not be entertained. Therefore, according to the 4[th] respondent, this writ petition is to be dismissed on this short ground. WP(C):15523/2022 -:8:- 10. He further contended that the as per the request of the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), a Special Investigation Team was constituted for investigation of Crime No.297/2017 on the file of Nedumbassery Police Station and to assist the prosecution in SC No.118/2018 before the learned Additional Special Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Later, the 5[th] respondent was posted as Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), pursuant to Government Order dated 31.12.2020 and as per Exhibit P3 order dated 07.01.2022, the Special Investigation Team has been re-constituted under the supervision of the 5[th] respondent. It would be apposite to state that the Special Investigation Team is conducting not only the further investigation of Crime No.297/2017, but also all other connected cases, including the case of conspiracy to endanger the lives of Investigating officer, in the above case registered against 7 persons. 11. He further contended that while so the State Government issued Exhibit-P4 order for transfer and posting of IPS Officers. As per the said order, the 5[th] respondent has been transferred from the Crime Branch and posted as Transport Commissioner in the place of 6[th] respondent. The 6[th] respondent, who is one of the senior most Additional Director General of WP(C):15523/2022 -:9:- Police in the department, is posted as ADGP (Crime Branch). Pursuant to the appointment of the 6[th] respondent, the Special Investigation Team has been re-constituted as per an Order No.T6-10403/2022/PHQ dated 27.04.2022. [Annexure R4(a)]. 12. He has also contended that the result achieved by the Special Investigation Team in the investigation is the result of team work and not of an individual officer in his individual capacity. As ADGP of the Crime Branch Unit, the main objective of the officer posted is to supervise and to issue necessary directions to take forward the investigation by his subordinates. The investigation in Crime No.297/2017 and allied cases that have been registered is going in the right direction and is in the final stage. 13. Finally, in support of his contentions, respondent No.4 has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Prakash Singh and others** v **. Union of India** [(2017) 6 SCC 801] which dealt with the tenure of an IPS Officer holding certain specific posts in the Police Department. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the Director General of Police and Head of the Police Force in the State appointed by the State Government from the list of officers empanelled by the Union Public Service Commission, WP(C):15523/2022 -:10:- be given a fixity of tenure of 2 years. Therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also directed that the Police Officers on operational duty in the fields like Inspector General of Police in Charge of zone, Director General of Police in charge of the range, Superintendent of Police in charge of the districts, and Station House Officers in charge of a police station, shall also have a prescribed tenure. Hence, according to the 4[th] respondent, the post held by the 5[th] respondent does not come within the stipulations prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. In such circumstances, according to the 4[th] respondent, the transfer effected by virtue of Exhibit P4 order dated 22.04.2022, is made taking into account the administrative convenience, as well as for effective Police administration. For the foregoing reasons, the 4[th] respondent submitted that the allegations raised in the instant writ petition are bereft of any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. Exhibit-P3 order No.T9/28733/2017/PHQ dated 7.1.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent is extracted hereunder: WP(C):15523/2022 -:11:- ## “ **PROCEEDINGS OF THE DGP & STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **Present: Anil Kant IPS** Sub: Re-constituting the 'Special Investigation Team' for the investigation of Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery PS - Orders issued. - Read:- 1. Order No.5/Camp/IGP/CBCID dated: 19.02.2017 of IGP Crimes - II. 2. Order No.D1(a)-28868/17/E dated: 18.05.2017 of DPC EKM Rural. 3. PHQ Order No.D7-66426/17/PHQ dated: 19.11.2017. 4. PHQ Order No.U2-31977/17/PHQ dated: 19.05.2018. 5. Letter No.04/CAMP/ADGP CB/2022 dated: 06.01.2022 of ADGP, Crime Branch. 6. PHQ order of even number dated: 06.01.2022. ## **ORDER NO.T9/28733/2017/PHQ DATED 07/01/2022** **01** . As per the orders read as 1[st] to 4[th] paper above, a 'Special Investigation Team' has been constituted for the investigation of Case in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station and assisting the prosecution of the case in S.C. No.118/2018 of the Hon'ble Additional Special Sessions Court, (SPE/CBI-III), Ernakulam. **02** . Now, as per the letter read 5[th] above, the ADGP, Crime Branch has reported that the case is under trial before the Hon'ble Additional Special Sessions Court, (SPE/CBI-III), Ernakulam and requested to include some additional members in the 'Special Investigation Team', constituted WP(C):15523/2022 -:12:- vide paper read 4[th] above, for assisting the prosecution of the above case. **03. As such, the 'Special Investigation Team' is hereby re-constituted with the following Police Officers under the direct supervision of Sri. S. Sreejith IPS, ADGP, Crime Branch** : 1. Sri. K.P.Philip, IGP Crime Branch, TVPM. 2. Sri. K.S.Sudarsan, Supdt of Police, Crime Branch, Thrissur. 3. Sri.M.J.Sojan Supdt of Police Crime Branch, Central Unit, Ernakulam. 4. Sri. Baiju Poulose M., Dy.SP Crime Branch, Alappuzha attached to SHO, ATS Police Station, Nedumbassery. 5. Sri. Baiju P.M., Inspector of Police, SHO, Nedumbassery Police Station. 6. Sri. Binu K.B., ASI of Police (SCPO 9061), Cheranalloor Police Station. 7. Sri. Vinod V.K., ASI of Police, (SCPO 10054), Nedumbassery Police Station. 8. Sri. Varghese, CPO10731, Kalady Police Station. 9. Sri. Anilkumar P.K., SCPO 10890, Ayyampuzha Police Station. 10. Sri. Binu P.O., SCPO 11062, Angamaly Police Station. 11. Smt. Manju N.M., SCPO 11556, Edathala Police Station. **04** . The 'Special Investigation Team' will expedite further investigation of the Case in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station and assist the prosecution of the case in S.C. No.118/2018 of the Hon'ble Additional Sessions court, (SPE/CBI - III), Ernakulam. WP(C):15523/2022 -:13:- 05. The orders issued vide reference read as 6[th] paper above is hereby cancelled. ANIL KANT DGP & STATE POLICE CHIEF” 17. The impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 22.04.2022 issued by the Joint Secretary, General Administration (AIS-C) Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram is extracted hereunder: “ **GOVERNMENT OF KERALA** Abstract IPS - Transfer and posting of IPS Officers - Orders issued ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## **GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AIS-C) DEPARTMENT** G.O.(Rt) No.1670/2022/GAD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 22-04-2022 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## **ORDER** An ex-cadre post of Director General of Police (Prisons & Correctional Services) is created in Level 16 of the Pay Matrix with Pay Scale Rs.205400-224400 for a period of one year with effect from 22-04-2022 and the post is declared equivalent in status and responsibility to the cadre post of Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau under Rule 12 of India Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2016. 2. Shri Sudeshkumar PIS (KL:1987), Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau is transferred and posted as Director General of Police (Prisons & Correctional WP(C):15523/2022 -:14:- Services) in the ex-cadre post created above. 3. Shri Shaik Darvesh Saheb IPC (KL:1990), Additional Director General of Police, Prisons is transferred and posted as Additional Director General of Police, Crimes vice Shri S. Sreejith IPS transferred. 4. Shri M.R. Ajithkumar IPC (KL:1995), Transport Commissioner is transferred and posted as Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance in the existing vacancy. 5. On transfer, Sri. S. Sreejith IPS (KL:1996) is posted as Transport Commissioner, vice Shri M.R. Ajithkumar IPS transferred. (By order of the Governor) T. SUDHEER BABU JOINT SECRETARY” 18. Instant public interest writ petition is filed against the transfer of a police officer, in charge of supervising an investigation in Crime No.297/2017, registered at the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam district. As rightly averred, investigation is the result of a team work and not of an individual officer. The incumbent is a senior most Additional Director General of Police in the department. 19. Posted with a question as to whether the petitioner has attributed mala fides, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly refuted the same. WP(C):15523/2022 -:15:- Giving due consideration to the material on record, we accept the reasons adduced for the transfer. That apart, it is also to be noted that public interest writ petition in service matters is not maintainable. On the said aspect, reference can be made to a few decisions. (i) In **Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India** , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. (ii) In **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab** , reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced: “13. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed there is no scope for taking action for contempt, particularly, when the petition is itself not maintainable. In any event, by order dated 15.4.2002 this Court had stayed operation of the High Court's order.” (iii) In **Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India** **and another** , reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the abovesaid Council, filed a public interest writ petition, challenging a notification, issued by the 2[nd] respondent therein, by which, applications were invited, from degree holders, with degree in education, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent therein, to appoint only those teachers, who were WP(C):15523/2022 -:16:- trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1[st] to 7[th] standards, to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. Following the decision in **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab** , reported in 2005 J.T. [5] SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court held as under: “This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab** , (2005 JT [5] SC 389). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.” (iv) In **N. Veerasamy v. Union of India** , reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 564, while considering a public interest litigation filed by a treasurer of a political party, praying to take action again Mrs. Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the 5[th] respondent therein, under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for allegedly making allegations against a leader of a political party, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the madras High Court held as follows:- "It is settled law that no writ in the form of public interest litigation will lie under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation. The extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in matters of this kind is required to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary cases." "The service matters are essentially between the employer and the employee and it would be for the State to take action under the Service Rules and there is no question of any public interest involved in such matters." "The petition is not only not maintainable either in law of facts but also would amount to abuse of the process of Court." WP(C):15523/2022 -:17:- (v) In **Neetu v. State of Punjab** , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.” “Referring to the decisions in **Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others** , reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 and **Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B** reported in (2004 (3) SCC 349), cited supra, the Apex Court held that PIL in service matters has been held as not maintainable.” (vi) In **Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra,** reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. (vii) In **Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others** , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655, claiming himself as Vidyut Shramik Leader, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, challenging the appointment of Mr.Hari Bansh Lal, who was appointed, as the Chairman of Jharkand State Electricity Board. The High Court declared that his appointment was not only arbitrary, but also, contemptuous, and ultimately, quashed his appointment, which gave rise to an appeal, before the Apex Court. Addressing the issue, as to whether a public interest writ petition, is maintainable in service matters, following the earlier decisions in **Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others** , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 and **Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B** WP(C):15523/2022 -:18:- reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349] and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “PIL in service matters: 11) About maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the Members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in sub-section (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the vigilance department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence. 12) We have already pointed out that the person who approached the High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be considered as a Member or Chairman of the Board but according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik Leader. Either before the High Court or in this Court, he has not placed any material or highlighted on what way he is suitable and eligible for that post. .............. The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, **Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others** , (2004) 3 SCC 363, **Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others** , (2005) 1 SCC 590 and **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Other** s, (2005) 5 SCC 136. 15) The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters.” (viii) In **Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya** **Pradesh and others** , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707, WP(C):15523/2022 -:19:- appointments were challenged in PIL, on the grounds of contravention of rules, regarding reservation of ex-servicemen. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered cancellation of appointments, and dismissed the review petitions also. While considering the issue, as to whether the matter ought to have been taken, as service dispute and not PIL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a catena of decisions, at paragraphs 14 to 19 held as under: “14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP(C) No. 1520/2001 and WP(C) No.63/2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention. 15. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter. 16. In the case of **Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others** (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three judge Bench of this Court held a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held "if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the (Administrative) Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated" (para 18). Same reasoning applies here as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment. 17. In **B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association and others** , reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in service matters only the non- WP(C):15523/2022 -:20:- appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure (See para 61, page 755 of the report). 18. This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in **Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others** , reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590, by pointing out that despite the decision in **Duryodhan Sahu** (supra), PILs in service matters 'continue unabated'. This Court opined that High Courts should 'throw out' such petitions in view of the decision in **Duryodhan Sahu** (supra) (Para 16, page 596). 19. Same principles have been reiterated in **Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.** , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, at page 358 (Para 16).” (ix) In **Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony Elangovan** , reported in (2010) 4 CTC 8, following **Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab** , reported in JT 2005 (5) SC 389, a Hon'ble Division Bench held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. (x) In **Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others** , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 464, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction to set aside the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent therein, as Principal, was sought for, as the 3[rd] respondent was junior, to them, and did not have the requisite qualification. Reiterating the legal position that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to entertain the challenge to the notices issued to Ramakrishna Mission to reconstitute the committees. (xi) Though the present writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate, we wish to incorporate the views of the Hon'ble Apex WP(C):15523/2022 -:21:- Court, while entertaining Public Interest Writ Petition, in **Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others** , reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 465]. At paragraphs 14 and 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as follows: “14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: **P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr.** , AIR 1980 SC 856; **Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.** , (2010) 2 SCC 114; **State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.** , (2010) 3 SCC 402; and **Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.** , (2011) 7 SCC 69). 15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: **Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors.** , AIR 1999 SC 114; **Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra** , AIR 2005 SC 540; and **Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors.** , AIR 2007 SC 758)” (xii) In **Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors.** , reported in AIR 2019 SC 3616, the Hon'ble Supreme WP(C):15523/2022 -:22:- Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable.” For the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** krj Sd/- **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** WP(C):15523/2022 -:23:- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** : - Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INDIA TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DATED JANUARY 2018. - Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 11.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, MUMBAI TO THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T9/28733/2017/PHQ DATED 07.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1670/2022/GAD DATED 22.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** : ANNEXURE ORDER No. T6-10403/2022/PHQ DTD 27/4/2022. R4(a) //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.