Public Interest Litigation Is Not Maintainable in Service Matters at the Instance of a Stranger

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a court direction for authorities to act on an enquiry memorandum and order concerning alleged financial irregularities.

Specifically, the petitioners alleged misappropriation of funds but did not approach any investigating agencies, relying instead on departmental communications.

This was the second such petition filed by the petitioners; a previous petition (W.P. No. 1728/2023) regarding property tax indiscipline had been dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate executive authorities.

1. Whether a Public Interest Litigation filed by a third party is maintainable in matters relating to the service conditions or disciplinary actions of government employees.

2. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when the petitioner has already been granted liberty to approach alternative administrative forums.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction.

The principles established in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2005), which establishes that PILs are generally not maintainable in service matters and that courts must filter out "frivolous petitions" filed by "interlopers" with oblique motives.

Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra to underscore that PILs involving service matters should be dismissed to preserve judicial time for genuine litigation.

The court reasoned that the petitioners were essentially seeking judicial intervention in departmental and service-related actions against employees, which is prohibited under the Gurpal Singh doctrine.

The Bench observed that the petition lacked specific evidence beyond departmental memos and failed to show that the petitioners had exhausted remedies through proper investigative agencies.

By comparing the current petition to the previously dismissed W.P. No. 1728/2023, the court determined that the petitioners were attempting to re-litigate an issue for which they already had a prescribed administrative path.

The court emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of PILs by "meddlesome interlopers" masquerading as public-spirited citizens.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining the liberty previously granted in the 2023 order for the petitioners to seek redressal through the relevant executive authorities rather than the court.