PIL challenging an individual appointment is untenable absent bona fide public interest and petitioner locus.

The petitioners, Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Prof. Laxmi Shankar Nigam, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5, Prof. (Dr.) Sachchidanand Shukla, as Vice-Chancellor of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur.

They sought quashing of the appointment order, the search committee’s recommendation, and the notification constituting the search committee, principally alleging that respondent No. 5 did not possess the minimum requirement of ten years’ experience as a Professor under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

They also alleged that the constitution of the search committee violated Regulation 7.3 and Section 13(4) of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the PIL was not maintainable because it concerned an individual service appointment, disclosed no genuine public injury, and was filed by persons lacking locus standi.

The Court confined its consideration to the maintainability of the PIL and did not adjudicate the substantive eligibility or validity of the appointment on merits.

The Court held that a PIL must be founded on bona fide public interest, a credible factual basis, and sufficient locus on the part of the petitioner; courts must guard against petitions motivated by personal gain, private interest, publicity, or oblique purposes.

Relying on State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, the Court reiterated that genuine PILs should be encouraged and frivolous or motivated PILs effectively discouraged.

Under Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, the judicial process cannot be permitted to be abused for oblique purposes.

Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281, and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, were relied upon to caution against busybodies and meddlesome interlopers misusing PIL jurisdiction.

Under Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136, courts must examine the petitioner’s credentials, the prima facie correctness and specificity of the information, and the gravity of the alleged public injury, particularly where a service appointment is challenged.

The petitioners’ substantive reliance on UGC Regulation 7.3 and Section 13(4) of the 1973 Adhiniyam was not decided because the PIL was rejected at the threshold.

The Court treated the challenge as essentially directed against an individual appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor rather than against a demonstrated public wrong affecting the public at large.

Applying the principles governing PIL maintainability, it found that the petitioners had not established a legally sustainable basis, bona fide public interest, or sufficient locus to invoke the Court’s extraordinary public-interest jurisdiction.

The Court also considered the possibility of oblique motives and emphasized that PIL jurisdiction must not become a vehicle for pursuing private or vested interests.

Since an alternative efficacious remedy was available, the Court declined to examine the alleged violations of the UGC Regulations or the State University Act in the PIL proceedings.

The PIL was accordingly dismissed on the ground of maintainability, without adjudicating the merits of the Vice-Chancellor’s eligibility or the validity of the search committee process.

The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue any other remedy available to them in law.