PIL not maintainable in service matters: Patna High Court's Chief Justice Bench

In Rana Ranjit vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 6-page long judgment dated August 22, 2025. This is the 25th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice concluded:"the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid decision. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed."

The petitioner had prayed that the order dated June 30, 2025 issued under signature of the respondent- Additional Secretary, whereby cumulative 132 personnel of the Urban Development and Housing Department were transferred, be quashed. The petitioner had also prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to ensure that the directions issued by the respondent-Election Commission of India in Clause 8 of memo dated June 24, 2025 under Article 324 of the Constitution of India is complied with.

It was submitted that in view of the pending Assembly Election in the State of Bihar, the Election Commission of India issued memo, whereby Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Electoral Rolls of each Assembly Constituency in the State of Bihar was to be conducted in the exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Election Commission of India has directed that the Chief Secretary shall ensure that CEO/ DEO/ ERO/ AERO/ BLO supervisor/ BLO and other officers involved in preparation of electoral rolls are
adequately supported with manpower and resources and further that during the revision period, the Chief Secretary shall ensure that no post notified as DEO/ ERO/ AERO is vacant and no such officer is transferred without prior approval of the Commission.

It was contended that the order of transfer is in violation of the letter issued by the Election Commission of India and therefore, the said order be quashed and thereby appropriate direction be issued to the respondent authority. 

The counsel of the respondents-State pointed out from the record that in the impugned order of transfer itself, it was stated that the said order is subject to approval of the Election Commission of India. 

Relying on para 15 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the counsel submitted: “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, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Neetu v. State of Punjab).”