The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are not maintainable in service matters, citing established Supreme Court precedents. This significant decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri in a case titled “Sourabh v. State of Haryana and others”.
The case arose from a PIL filed by the petitioner, Sourabh, challenging Advertisement No.16/2024 dated 21.06.2024 issued for filling up the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group-B) in the Health & Ayush Department, Haryana. The petitioner contended that while the advertisement included vacancies for Orthopaedically Handicapped (OH) candidates, it failed to include other handicapped categories, allegedly violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and Section 20 of the Disability Act, 2016.
The court, however, focused on the preliminary issue of whether a service matter could be raised through a PIL. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, delivering the oral judgment, referred to several Supreme Court decisions that consistently held that service disputes cannot be raised through PILs.
Key legal precedents cited by the court include:
1. Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998)
2. Neetu vs. State of Punjab (2007)
3. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra (2005)
4. Vishal Ashok Thorat and others vs. Rajesh Shripambapu and others (2020)
The court particularly emphasized the Supreme Court’s observation in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware’s case, which stated: “Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. 1998 (4) SCT 213 (SC), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained”.
While the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, drew attention to a recent Supreme Court decision (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41779 of 2023) that left the question of PIL maintainability in service matters open, the High Court maintained that the prevailing law as established by earlier judgments still holds.
Chief Justice Nagu observed: “From perusal of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, it reveals that the issue as to whether a service matter can be entertained by way of Public Interest Litigation was though categorized as debatable issue but left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Therefore, there was no adjudication on the said issue and thus, this Court has no manner of doubt that the prevailing law on the issue which is evident from the earlier judgments as quoted above, holds the field”.
Also Read
The court dismissed the petition, ruling it non-maintainable. This decision reinforces the principle that service matters should be pursued through appropriate legal channels rather than PILs, ensuring that the court’s time is utilized efficiently for genuine public interest cases.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, and Dr. Neha Awasthi, Advocate for respondent No.2-HPSC, represented the respondents in the case.
