Sh. P. C. Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

"(a)

Issue a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ, order and/ or direction in the like nature, thereby directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry into the irregular appointment of respondent no. 3;

(b)

Issue writ, order and/ or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/ or direction in the like nature, thereby directing the respondent no. 2 to remove respondent no. 3 from the post;

(c)

Issue any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the like nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents;"

"14.

This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 649 : AIR 1980 SC 856] , Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] , State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] and Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 560] .)

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 [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590 : AIR 2005 SC 540] and Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 : AIR 2007 SC 758] .)