Priya Das v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed seeking relief of quo warranto qua the appointment of Respondent No.3 i.e., Bharat Kumar Sharma as an Assistant Environmental Engineer (‘AEE’) with Respondent No. 2 i.e., Central Pollution Control Board (‘CPCB’) under the Scheduled Tribes (‘ST’) category in the year 1997 on the ground that the caste certificate submitted by Respondent No. 3 is illegal.

2. The Petitioner also challenges the appointment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Member Secretary, CPCB made vide office order dated 09th August, 2023 by Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (‘MoEFCC’) and prays for his removal from the said post since, the said appointment has been made based on the previous appointment for the post of AEE which was illegal.

3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent No. 3 has been illegally appointed in the year 1997 by Respondent No. 2 on the basis of a false and fabricated caste certificate which was never verified at the time of initial appointment.

3.1. He states that the Respondent No. 3 has claimed to belong to ST caste of Lohar, however, he contends that Lohar caste falls under Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) category and not ST Category. In this regard, he relies upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court viz. Nityanand Sharma and Another v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 576 and Prabhat Kumar Sharma Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others (2006) 10 SCC 58.

4. In this petition, it has been averred that the Petitioner is a social activist and patron of the Tribal Social Welfare Trust.

5. It has also been disclosed in this petition that the Petitioner had earlier approached Respondent No. 2 and the said Respondent has disposed of her complaint by a letter dated 07th November, 2023, wherein it is recorded that the caste certificate submitted by Respondent No. 3 in 1997 has been verified and found to be genuine. The letter dated 07th November, 2023 also refers to conduct of enquiry by the Vigilance Cell of CPCB on a complaint received from the Petitioner, and closure of the said enquiry by Central Vigilance Commission. The petition discloses that the Petitioner has also made representations to other authorities on the same issue, but as no decision has been taken by them till date, therefore, the Petitioner has preferred the present PIL.

6. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the present PIL.

7. It is settled law that PIL is not maintainable in service matters and, that in service matters, only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment or extension procedure. The Supreme Court in Girjesh Srivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707 has held as under:-

19. In a recent decision of this Court delivered on 30-8-2010, in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto [(2010) 9 SCC 655], it has been held that except in a case for a writ of “quo warranto”, PIL in a service matter is not maintainable (see SCC para 15).” (Emphasis supplied)

8. Likewise in the case of Vishal Ashok Thorat & Ors. vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors., (2020) 18 SCC 673, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “40. Although, the learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions on the validity of Rule 3(iii) proviso, Rule 3(iv) proviso and Rule 4 but in the facts of the present case, where the writ petitioner i.e. Respondent 1 was held by the High Court not competent to challenge Advertisements Nos. 2 and 48 of 2017, the High Court committed error in proceeding to examine the validity of the 2016 Rules. The challenge to the 2016 Rules in the background of the present case ought not to have been allowed to be raised at the instance of the writ petitioner. Respondent 1, who did not participate in the selection and the High Court had specifically rejected the entitlement of Respondent 1 to challenge Advertisements Nos. 2 and 48 of 2017, as held in para 49 of the judgment [Rajesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 17538], permitting him to challenge the validity of the Rules in reference to the same advertisements is nothing but indirectly challenging something which could not be challenged directly by Respondent 1. The High Court in the facts of the present case, where Respondent 1 was not allowed to challenge the advertisements or the select list should not have been allowed to challenge the 2016 Rules insofar as the selection in question was concerned. The writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was not styled or framed as PIL. It is well settled that with regard to service jurisprudence, PIL are not entertained.

41. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra [Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465: (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 658: (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 296], this Court has reiterated that PIL should not be entertained in service matter. In para 15 the following has been laid down: (SCC p. 477) “15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802], Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590] and Neetu v. State of Punjab [Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614].)” (Emphasis supplied)