The court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of a Gram Panchayat Secretary. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench held that PILs in service matters should not be entertained.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 25098 of 2012
03. 05.05.2016 The challenge in this writ petition, which has been filed in t
he nature of Public Interest Litigation, is against the appointment of opp. party no.4 as Gram
Panchayat Secretary of Subalaya Gram Panchayat in the district of Ganjam.
Leaerned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-opp. parties and Shri Bi
dyadhar Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opp. party no.4 have jointly sta
ted that it has been successively held by the Apex Court that PIL in service matters should no
t be entertained, and they rely on the decisions in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others, etc. etc. v
. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, etc. etc., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. St
ate of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 540 and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors, AIR 2007 SC
758.
Having considered the aforesaid judgments and keeping in view the nature of th
e prayer made in this petition, which is challenged to service/appointment, the writ petition
is dismissed.
.......
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
....
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
-2-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding service appointment can be entertained.
Whether the Apex Court's precedent prohibits PIL in service matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and othersRelied on¶2
AIR 1999 SC 114 · Who else cites this
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶2
AIR 2005 SC 540 · Who else cites this
Neetu v. State of Punjab & OrsRelied on¶2
AIR 2007 SC 758 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Petitioner
State-opp. parties
opp. party no.4
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court