Public interest writ petition challenging the alleged illegal regularisation of contract labourers engaged by the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education in violation of court directions. The court held that a public interest writ petition is not maintainable in service matters and declined to entertain the petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR), ADV.ANIL ABEY JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of January 2022
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Challenge involved in this public interest writ petition is the alleged illegal regularisation of contract labourers in violation of the directions issued by this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to abstain from making any further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 including disbursement of salaries and service benefits to the respondents 5 to18 other than those under the contractual obligations.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from regularizing the services of other contractual employees under the cover of Ext.P1.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 and 2 to re-notify the posts created for R5 to R18 in general category in the interest of justice.
of Professional Education (CAPE)] the alleged irregular appointment
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 3 ::
of the respondents 5 to 18, contractual employees, working under the 2nd respondent who were earlier working under the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (CAPE).
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 4 ::
A.S.Pillai and others (2010) 13 SCC 448 ; State of Rajasthan and Others
V. Dayalal and others (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others v. Sakkubai and another (1997) 11 SCC
224 .
"(i) When maintainability of the public interest writ petition, in service matters, was raised by us, Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Jaskaran Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab And Ors. , [2005 (3) SLJ 354 P & H]. At that juncture, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that judgments of other High Courts, do not have any binding effect, more particularly, when the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is to the effect that, a public interest writ petition is not maintainable in service matters, he sought for an adjournment.
(ii) Way back in 1998, in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue, as to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. After considering the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 5 ::
as follows:-
“18....... Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.”
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power."
We agree with the above reasoning.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 6 ::
Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.”
(iii) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B ., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), “public interest” is defined thus:
“Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected’.”
“Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.”
“The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
follows:
“Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 7 ::
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.”
“While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.”
“It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 8 ::
undue delay in service matters — government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 9 ::
Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
“Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.”
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 10 ::
Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and dire consequences.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 11 ::
for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
(iv) In Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
(v) 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.”
(vi) 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 2nd 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 trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1st to 7th 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 J.T. [5] SC 389). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”
(vii) 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
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 12 ::
political party, praying to take action again Mrs.Lakshmi Pranesh, IAS, the fifth 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 above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this 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."
(viii) In B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and others , reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731, at paragraph 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure.
(ix) In Neetu v. State of Punjab , reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“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.”
(x) In Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 290, the Hon'ble Apex Court restated that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 13 ::
(xi) In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and other s, 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 reported in [(2004) 3 SCC 349] and other decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“PIL in service matters:
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.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 14 ::
writ of quo warranto, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters.”
(xii) In Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other s, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707, 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 has held as follows:-
“14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) 1520/2001 and WP(C) 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.
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 15 ::
'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).
(xiii) 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.
(xiv) 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 3rd respondent therein, as Principal, was sought for, as the 3rd 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.
(xv) Though the present writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate, we wish to incorporate the views of the Hon'ble Apex 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
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 16 ::
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).
(xvi) In Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable.”
of the society and in the light of the above discussion and
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 17 ::
decisions, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition claimed as a public interest writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
WP(C)NO.1015 OF 2022
:: 18 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.RT.NO.126/2021-CO-OP PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-2-2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.8143, 14551, 22472 AND 23959 OF 2016 DATED 1.3.2018.
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA NOS.1063, 1188 AND 2068 OF 2018 DATED 1.8.2019.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN SLP(C)DIARY NOS.41585 OF 2019 DATED 2.12.2019.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest writ petition is maintainable in service matters.
Whether the writ petition challenging the regularisation of contract labourers by the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education is maintainable as a public interest litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and others v. A.S.Pillai and othersReferred¶4
Union of India and others v. A.S.Pillai and others (2010) 13 SCC 448 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Dayalal and othersReferred¶4
State of Rajasthan and Others V. Dayalal and others (2011) 2 SCC 429 · Who else cites this
Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others v. Sakkubai and anotherReferred¶4
Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others v. Sakkubai and another (1997) 11 SCC 224 · Who else cites this
Jaskaran Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab And Ors.Referred¶7
Jaskaran Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab And Ors., [2005 (3) SLJ 354 P & H]
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and othersFollowed¶7
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶7
Dr. B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363 · Who else cites this
Gurpal Singh v. State of PunjabFollowed¶7
Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136 · Who else cites this
Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and anotherReferred¶7
Indian Consumers Welfare Council v. Union of India and another 2005 (3) L.W. 522
N. Veerasamy v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
N. Veerasamy v. Union of India (2005) 2 MLJ 564
B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and othersFollowed¶7
B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association and others (2006) 11 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
Neetu v. State of PunjabFollowed¶7
Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶7
Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 290 · Who else cites this
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and othersFollowed¶7
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others (2010) 9 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and othersFollowed¶7
Girjesh Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2010) 10 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony ElangovanReferred¶7
Soma Velandi v. Dr.Anthony Elangovan (2010) 4 CTC 8
Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and othersFollowed¶7
Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others (2011) 5 SCC 464 · Who else cites this
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and othersFollowed¶7
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2013) 4 SCC 465] · Who else cites this
Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors.Followed¶7
Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3616 · Who else cites this
Santhosh V.K
Dinesan
State of Kerala
The Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (CAPE)
Director of the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (CAPE)
Registrar of Co-operative Societies
S.Manikumar
Shaji P.Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
