Supreme Court rules that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters except the writ of quo warranto

Supreme Court rules that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters except the writ of quo warranto

In Hari Bansh Lal V/s Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors the Supreme Court has ruled that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters except the writ of quo warranto which can be issued only if the appointment has been made in violation of statutory provisions.

A bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan permitted petitioner Hari Bansh Lal to join duty forthwith and continue as chairman of Jharkhand State Electricity Board in terms of his appointment order.

Eighty four-year-old petitioner was removed from the chairmanship of the State Electricity Board (SEB) vide an order dated April 27, 2009 by the Jharkhand High Court on a PIL filed by Sahodar Prasad Mahto claiming to be vidyut shramik leader.

Justice Sathasivam, speaking for the bench through his 32-page judgment, disapproved the tendency of the government taking a U-turn with the change of party in power.

Mr. Lal was appointed chairman in 2004 and the state government lauded his experience and competence but the government changed colours when the party in power changed.

The apex court in its judgment noted 'in the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

The appellant is permitted to join duty forthwith and continue as chairman of the SEB in terms of his appointment order'.

'We make it clear that his continuance in the post of chairman is subject to the ultimate decision of the government,' it said. However, the same shall be in accordance with Section 5 (5) of the Act and Rule 4 of the rules.

On the maintainability of the PIL in service matters, the Supreme Court has said the above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL, is not maintainable in service matters and the administrative tribunals or the High Court cannot entertain a PIL in such matters at the instance of a total stranger.

Lal had retired from the service of the board in 1976. The Supreme Court has said there is no age limit for this post of Chairman.