The Patna High Court imposed a Cost of Rs.5,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking cancellation/recall of the office order(s) issued by the respondent no. 6 (The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur), whereby a large number of Assistant Professors have been transferred to different constituent colleges.
The concern of the petitioner is shown to be unmindful transfer of teachers/Assistant Professors in the University at the cost of total loss of teaching and suffering of the students.
However, despite the facts being brought to the knowledge of the competent authorities by filing representation and meeting personally, when no action was taken, the petitioner approached the Court. Besides the issue of transfer, certain other points have also been raised in respect to the shortcomings of faculty members and unjustified recommendation for cancellation of admission of the students, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar noted.
The scope of entertaining a petition giving name of Public Interest Litigation in service matters has been dealt with in various cases and held to be not maintainable. The position with regard to locus standi of a person particularly in a service matter is elaborately highlighted in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v.State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC 349], wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 14 has observed as follows:
“14 The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.”
The Apex Court earlier in Duryodhan (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273] has held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision.
“The case in hand clearly depicts a sorry state of affairs, the manner in which the Public Interest Litigations are being filed without having absolutely no real public purpose but to interfere with transfer of the teachers/Assistant Professors only for vested interests and thus often being misused. The transfer of a teacher/Assistant Professor is on the exigencies of service within the domain of the employer/competent authority and any person feeling aggrieved has a remedy to approach before a court but not in the manner in which the present writ petition is filed describing it to be a Public Interest Litigation.”
The High Court finds no reason to entertain the petition and the same stands dismissed with caution and a cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. In case of failure to deposit the said amount, the Bihar State Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to proceed for recovery by taking appropriate measures as a revenue due on land, through the District Magistrate.