Joint Coordination Committee Of Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd. Officers Association and Employee vs Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd. and Others

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.—This writ petition is filed before this Court mainly challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Deputy General Manager of the Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd. This petition is filed by way of public interest litigation. None of the petitioners nor the person who has sworn the affidavit is, in any manner, could be said to be personally aggrieved by the aforesaid appointment of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Deputy General Manager. None of the members of the petitioners'' society nor the person who has sworn the affidavit had applied for being appointed to the aforesaid post. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be said to be directly concerned and affected by the appointment of the respondent No. 2.

We may, at this stage, refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnit Prasad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein the Apex Court observed thus:

However, a mere busybody who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in the Supreme Court.

We may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., . In the said decision the Supreme Court held that in service matters public interest litigation petition should not be entertained. The aforesaid observations were made in view of the fact that the so called public interest litigations are continuing unabated in the courts. Service matters are generally private disputes and Therefore public interest litigations challenging appointment should not be entertained. The said decision again came to be discussed in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, wherein it was observed thus:

When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out.... A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit of political motive or any oblique consideration.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to submit that there are certain other grievances raised in the petition apart from the issue with regard to appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of Deputy General Manager. We have gone through the petition, particularly the grounds of the petition. On going through the same we are satisfied that the principal aim and idea, if not the sole and core objective to file the writ petition, is to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Deputy General Manager. Matter of appointment is for the respondent No. 1 to decide keeping in mind need of the management and it is purely an administrative decision. Whether or not respondent No. 2 should be appointed and on what terms, cannot be decided by this Court sitting as an expert. We do not think that in the present case, public interest writ petition should be entertained.

We are not inclined to entertain this petition which, is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner and the same shall be realised by the concerned respondent No. 1 from all the members of the petitioner society.