Says, third party interference cannot be entertained in service matters

: The Madras High Court Bench here on has imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on two individuals for filing a writ petition alleging that four lecturers of Devanga Arts college in Aruppukottai of Virudhunagar district had joined the government aided institution by submitting bogus certificates.

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice K. Chandru wondered how the petitioners could maintain such a petition which was in the nature of a public interest litigation petition especially when the Supreme Court had consistently held that even PILs could not be entertained in service matters on the basis of third party interference. The apex court in Neetu Vs. State of Punjab (2007) had said: “A time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so called PILs where even a miniscule percentage cannot be called as public interest.

“Though in Duryodhan Sahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 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.

The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out. “The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity, the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the documents…”

Oblique motive

“It would be desirable for courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” Despite this ruling, the High Court had entertained a writ petition filed by the present petitioners last year and directed the Joint Director of Collegiate Education to conduct an enquiry regarding the educational qualifications of the four lecturers.

Accordingly an enquiry was conducted and the certificates of P. Sundaramoorthy, V. Mehswaran (both commerce lecturers), S. Hemalatha and S. Kumar (chemistry lecturers) were found to be genuine.

Not satisfied with it, the petitioners V. Dhayalamani and K. Rajaponnu had come up with the present writ petition challenging the conclusion arrived at by the Joint Director.