Paras vs State of M.P. and Another

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—Heard on the question of admission. This petition in the nature of Pro-Bono Publico is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to extend the benefit to those female candidates of appearing in the next competitive examination conducted by the State Government and the Public Service Commission who on account of wrong policies adopted by the Public Service Commission since the year 1997 to 2011, were deprived of appearing in the various competitive examinations held for those years. A prayer for relaxation in the age of those female candidates and permission for them to appear in the ensuing examinations conducted by various Government Departments and the Public Service Commission has also been sought.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the averments made in the writ petition.

We find that this petition in the nature of public interest litigation (PIL), is not maintainable, as it is not the case of the petitioner that those female candidates who could not appear in the earlier examinations on account of the alleged wrong policies of the State Government could not and cannot approach the Court for redressal of their individual grievances as they were and are in such financial constraints so as to be incapable to afford the litigation. Those female candidates cannot qualify as "little Indians" warranting entertaining this petition as PIL.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, has issued a note of caution by observing that weapon of public interest litigation should be used with great care and circumspection. It is also seen that this PIL is essentially relating to the service matter. It has been now well settled by catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. In service matters only the non appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure, except in a case of writ of quo warranto no PIL in service matter is maintainable. (See Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., , B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees'' Association and Others, , Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, and Bholanath Mukherjee and Others Vs. R.K. Mission V. Centenary College and Others, ) In view of the aforesaid legal position, we decline interference in the matter and dismiss this petition in limine.