Dismissed

Mohammed Arif Jameel v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2021WP/22640/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of a Registrar at Bengaluru University. The bench held that PILs in service matters are generally not maintainable except via a writ of quo warranto, requiring the petitioner to show the appointment violates statutory rules, which was not satisfied here.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.

Mohammed Arif Jameel Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.22640 OF 2021 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL S/O.LATE ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.179, II FLOOR 6^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN II STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN BENGALURU – 560 045 ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DIVYATEJ H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶13

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

THE VICE CHANCELLOR BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI NAGARABHAVI POST BENGALURU – 560 056

¶17

THE REGISTRAR BENGALURU UNIVERSITY

¶18

¶19

JNANABHARATHI NAGARABHAVI POST BENGALURU – 560 056

¶20

PROF.M.KOTRESH S/O.M.BASAPPA MAJOR PRESENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR (ADMN.) KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMRAJAPET BENGALURU – 560 018 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.VANI H., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER NOTIFICATION DATED 26.11.2021 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard.

¶27

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed

¶28

seeking following reliefs:

¶29

“(a) Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned transfer notification in Sankhye: SiAaSuE 260 AaSeva 2021 dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Government of Karnataka vide ANNEXURE-D.

¶30

¶31

(b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to withdraw the impugned notification in Sankhye: SiAaSuE 260 AaSeva 2021 dated 26.11.2021 vide ANNEXURE-D

¶32

(c) Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Government to appoint the eligible person to the post of Registrar of Bengaluru University as per the contemplated provision under section 10 of the The copy of the Karnataka State Universities and Certain Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2020 dated 30.12.2020

¶33

(d) Pass any other order/s or directions to the Respondents that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he

¶35

is a social worker and RTI activist working for upliftment of poor and needy, especially for minority communities. He is not having any personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in filing the present Public Interest Litigation. This petition is filed for common cause and in the interest of Bengaluru University. The petitioner is not involved in any other civil or criminal or revenue litigation which would lead

¶36

¶37

to legal nexus with the issues involved in the present writ petition.

¶38

It is submitted that fifth respondent has been

¶39

wrongly appointed to the post of Registrar of Bengaluru University as he is not eligible for the post in question. As such, the petitioner is challenging the appointment order of the fifth respondent which has been issued under impugned notification dated 26.11.2021 and a writ of mandamus has also been sought to the respondent-Government to appoint eligible person to the post of Registrar of Bengaluru University as per the provision under Section 10 of the Karnataka State Universities and certain law (second amendment) Act, 2020 dated 30.12.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has called upon to satisfy this court on maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation in a service matter. He has not been able to provide any satisfactory reply as to how the instant writ petition in the given facts and circumstances particularly for the prayer made is maintainable.

¶40

We are of the considered view that the writ petition

¶41

with regard to Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment on a particular post in service of University i.e.

¶42

¶43

appointment on the post of Registrar of Bengaluru University is not maintainable. We are also of the considered view that no Public Interest Litigation in the service matter except by way of writ of quo warranto for which the appointment must be shown contrary to the statutory provision is maintainable. We are also of the considered view that no stranger i.e. the person who is not concerned with the functioning and working of an Organisation can maintain the Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment made in that organization. We are supporting our view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto reported in (2010)9 SCC 655 . The relevant paragraph is 34, which is reproduced as under:

¶44

“34. From the discussion and analysis,

¶45

the following principles emerge:

¶46

(a) Except for a writ of quo warranto,

¶47

PIL is not maintainable in service matter.

¶48

(b) For issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.

¶49

(c) Suitability or otherwise of a candidate

¶50

for appointment to a post in government service is the function of the appointing authority and not of the court unless the

¶51

¶52

appointment is contrary to statutory provisions/rules.”

¶53

In the case of Dr.Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra

¶54

Kumar Mishra reported in (1998)7 SCC 273 , the Hon’ble

¶55

Apex Court in paragraphs-12 and 13 has held as under:

¶56

“12. We have heard counsel on both sides at length. Several rulings have been relied on by them though in none of them, the question arose directly for consideration. The question as to maintainability of a public interest litigation before the Tribunal depends for its answer on the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal having been created by the Act, the scope and extent of its jurisdiction have to be determined by interpreting the provisions thereof. In S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India it was held that the Tribunals constituted under the Act were effective substitutes to the High Courts in the scheme of administration of justice and they were entitled to exercise powers thereof. It was observed that they were real substitutes not only in form and de jure but in content and de facto. On that premise, the Court held that the power of judicial review exercised by High Courts in service matters under Articles 226 and 227 was completely excluded. It may be noticed that the order of reference dated 15-2-1996

¶57

¶58

extracted in the earlier paragraph makes a specific mention of this aspect of the matter. If that view had continued to prevail, the approach to the question might have been different.

¶59

13. But the law has now been declared differently in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India that the Tribunals have to perform only a “supplemental – as opposed to a substitutional – role” in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. This Court has held that the powers of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 are not taken away by the Act. It is only against such a backdrop that the jurisdictional of the Tribunal under the Act to entertain a public interest litigation has to be decided. No doubt, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even from the inception of the Act, public interest litigations could be entertained only by the High Courts in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction and plenary powers and as such powers were not available to the Tribunals, the latter could never have entertained such litigations. It is not necessary for us to consider that contention. As the status of the Tribunals has now been settled in L.Chandra Kumar we will discuss the question in the light of the said pronouncement.”

¶60

¶61

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed on

¶62

the ground of maintainability.

¶63

Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶64

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66