Public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters except by way of quo warranto.

The petitioner, a consumer-welfare association, filed a public interest writ petition seeking the discharge of persons notified as Legal Metrology Officers and fresh appointments under Section 14(2) of the Legal Metrology Act and Rule 28 of the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011.

It alleged that 308 Labour Department officers lacked the prescribed qualifications and that 50 additional officers had been notified and sent for training.

The petitioner relied on central-government clarifications concerning requests for relaxation and on its representation dated 20 July 2026.

The Court considered whether the PIL was maintainable and also noted that none of the officers whose positions were challenged had been made a party.

1. Whether a consumer association, as a stranger to the service, could maintain a PIL seeking the discharge of Legal Metrology Officers and fresh appointments

2. Whether relief affecting officers who were not impleaded could be granted

Section 14(2) of the Legal Metrology Act and Rule 28 of the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 formed the statutory background to the challenge; Rule 28 prescribes qualifications for Legal Metrology Officers.

On maintainability, the Court applied Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, and Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655, along with the authorities referred to in the latter, for the rule that a PIL is generally not maintainable in service matters, except for a writ of quo warranto.

A quo warranto claim requires a challenge to a person’s authority to hold public office on the ground that the appointment contravenes statutory rules; a court ordinarily does not assess suitability where the appointing authority has determined eligibility.

The Court also applied the principle that persons whose rights may be affected must be given an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner was a consumer association, not a competing candidate, employee, or member of the relevant department, and had shown only a general public concern in the appointments.

Its prayer sought a mandamus to discharge a group of officers and make fresh appointments; it was not framed as a quo warranto challenge to the authority of any named officer to hold public office.

Further, the officers targeted for removal were not parties and had no opportunity to defend their positions.

The Court therefore held that the petition could not proceed as a service-matter PIL and that the requested relief could not be granted in the absence of the affected persons.

The Court did not decide the officers’ qualifications on the merits.

The dismissal did not prevent the respondents from considering the petitioner’s representation dated 20 July 2026 in accordance with law.