In a PIL regarding the alleged transfer of the MPSC Secretary to scuttle investigation, the Court held that PILs generally do not lie in service matters and a petitioner not directly affected cannot file such a petition. The petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed; direction to conclude ongoing selection investigations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2006
Citizens For Just Society ....Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors
....Respondents
Mr H.S.S. Murthy i/b Mr.P.M. Havnur for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General for respondent No.1 Mr. T.N.Subramanian i/b Ms Chandana Salgaonkar Radia for respondent No.3
Mr. Sangram Yadav i/b Mr.Makrand Adkar for respondent Nos. 4 to 6
Mr., S.R. Ganbavle for respondent No. 7
CORAM: H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M.KANADE, J.
DATE: 11th December, 2006.
Judgement (Per Chief Justice):-
This petition filed in public interest is directed against the transfer of respondent No.7 Ms Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on
the plea that the same was malafide and intended to side track the investigation in the criminal investigations that were going on in respect of the selections made by the Commission
2
to various posts. Brief facts, as given in the petition, are as under:
3
4
continuance of her deputation for another period of one year from 31st January, 2006 and this proposal had been endorsed by Shri V.N. Deshmukh, the present Chairman but had been subsequently withdrawn vide letter dated 19th December, 2005. It appears however that despite the fact that the deputation of respondent No.7 has come to an end, she continues to be in office as Secretary as a consequence of some order made by the Governor.
5
it had transpired that some of the answer papers had been destroyed with the result that no substantial action could be taken, but on the basis of an internal inquiry ordered by the then Chairman Mr. Warty, some serious malpractices had been revealed and accordingly show cause notices had been issued to the Lohar brothers and after perusing the replies, the recommendation for their appointment had been recalled. It has been pointed out that criminal cases started in 1999 had nothing to do with the inquiry pertaining to the Lohar brothers and that notwithstanding the fact that a detailed report had been submitted by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department as regards the 1997 examination, respondent No.8 continued to unnecessarily extend the ambit of the investigation despite orders to the contrary from his superiors. It has further been pleaded that respondent No. 7 had been specifically directed by the Commission to file an FIR with the Director General of the ACB in the matter of the Lohar brothers but despite this clear direction, she had desisted from doing so for some time but on the contrary had given all confidential information to respondent No.8. It has been pointed out that the conduct of respondent No.7 was a transgression of her duties and her conduct amounted to an act of indiscipline and as a cumulative result of all these factors he had withdrawn his
6
earlier recommendations for a further extension of one year beyond 2006.
7
8
and removed from office and as such the very basis of the petitioner's claim that the transfer of respondent No.7, if effected would side track the investigation, was not correct. It has further been pleaded that no writ petition in public interest lay in service matters and for this purpose reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 590. It has further been pointed out that even assuming that respondent No.7 was a whistle blower and had given vital information on a matter of great public concern that situation too no longer existed as all possible and available information had been given by her to the Investigating Officer respondent No.8, or had been divulged in the copious affidavits filed by her in the present proceedings.
9
selections took place and as such cannot have any personal role to play in the alleged attempt to scuttle the investigation. It is also clear from the record that a large number of charge sheets have been filed against several senior officials as well as public functionaries and proceedings against the members of the Commission have been initiated which are pending in the Supreme Court. We therefore find it difficult to uphold the contention that the so called transfer of respondent No.7 would in any way prejudice the proceedings. We also find that the plea of the learned Advocate General that respondent No. 7 had been appointed as Secretary of the Commission on deputation and at the end of the deputation period, must return to her parent department must be accepted. In this background the learned Advocate General has also drawn our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case (supra). In this case it is observed as under:
“---- a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-
10
called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra AIR 1999 SCC 114 this court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least 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 PILs, official 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 packet was lying on the road
11
and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
12
therefore of the view that she cannot be permitted to ride piggy back taking shelter behind a veneer of public interest. We also observe that continuance of respondent No.7 in office, would be against her interest and also clearly detrimental to the smooth functioning of the Commission. It must be emphasized that a Public Service Commission is a Constitutional body exercising very important functions, and a clash of personalities amongst those entrusted with its responsibility hamstringing its activities must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that respondent No.7 has outlived her utility and must return to her parent department.
9 We have also gone through the relevant prayer clauses of the petition, these are reproduced below:
13
“a) that this Hon`ble court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction calling upon respondent Nos.1 to 6 to produce all papers, documents covering the recommendation and transfer of respondent No.7 and after perusing the same be pleased to hold that the recommendation and transfer is malafide and made only to scuttle the on going investigation of MPSC scam.
b) that pending this petition,to direct the respondent nos.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 not to transfer respondent No.7 and as per the decision and recommendation of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (respondent No.2) communicated to respondent No. 1, extend the tenure of respondent No. 7 for a further period of one year, from 1.2.2006 to 31.1.2007
c) To pass appropriate orders to allow
prosecution of respondent No.3 under section 193 IPC for offence under section 192 IPC and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
14
d) to initiate proceedings against respondent No.3 for contempt of this Hon`ble court.
e) to carry out a judicial examination of the contents of the letter written by respondent No. 8 to the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau and to examine whether it is in public interest to allow the continuation of respondent No.3 as Chairman of Maharashtra Public Service Commission.”
CHIEF JUSTICE
15
V.M.KANADE, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Wheateth public interest litigation lie in service matters to restrain an administrative decision regarding the deployment of a government official?
Whether a PIL can be filed by a petitioner other than the person directly affected to prevent the transfer of a public servant?
What is the disposal of the PIL regarding the plea to prevent the transfer of the Secretary of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶35
(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 590
Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) vs Jitendra Kumar MishraDistinguished¶37
AIR 1999 SCC 114 · Who else cites this
Citizens For Just Society
State of Maharashtra
Ms Seema Dhamdhere
Shri V.N. Deshmukh
H.S. BEDI
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
