Jatin Grover v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited IREDA & Ors.

1. Present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the recruitment process as well as the recruitment policy of the respondent no.1- Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA). The petitioner further seeks setting aside of the Recruitment Circular No. IREDA/RECRUITMENT/HR/01/2021 as also the appointments made by respondent no.1 under the campus placement in 2018 and 2021, in particular, from Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar; cancellation of recruitment of respondent nos.[9] to 30 being illegal and attracting favoritism; suspension of IREDA Board; and a direction to respondent no.1 to frame a fair and transparent recruitment policy. It also seeks a direction to respondent no.3- Department of Public Enterprises to constitute a Board for selection of candidates for all positions of PSU under it.

2. From a perusal of the prayers, it is observed that the present PIL seeks cancellation of the Recruitment Policy as well as the appointments made under it for the years 2018 and 2021, apart from other reliefs. The law in this regard is very clear, that, a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Supreme Court while dealing with an issue as to whether a PIL at the instance of a stranger could be entertained, has held that in service matters, PIL should not be entertained. The said ratio has been reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again in Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363; Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 and Seema Dharmdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 290. The relevant paragraph of the judgement in Dr. B. Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:

number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273] this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the 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. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”

3. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid ratio, the present petition in the nature of a PIL is not maintainable.

4. A perusal of the record also shows that even on facts, the present PIL is not maintainable. The respondent no.1 vide recruitment no. IREDA/RECRUITMENT/HR/01/2021 invited applications for the posts on regular as well as contractual basis to which the petitioner had also applied. As the petitioner did not make it to the final list, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 6884/2022 titled Jatin Grover vs.

IREDA & Ors., challenging the recruitment process of respondent no.1. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15th December, 2023 reiterating the settled principle of law that a person having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest is precluded from challenging the said selection process. The Court also noted that though the petitioner had challenged the recruitment process of respondent no.1, yet, had not challenged the Recruitment Policy through which the said manner of recruitment stems.

5. The law on the subject has been crystallized in several decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts in Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127; Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309; and Karan Singh Meena vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3098. Relevant paragraph of the judgement of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Karan Singh Meena (supra) is extracted hereunder:

appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh, this Court held that:

14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.

15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:

16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.