"Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; Te decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps..."
-Supreme Court's 5-Judge Constitution Bench, November 7, 2024 in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court. & Ors. [2024 INSC 847]
Patna High Court's bench of the Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha heard Yadvenra Kumar Yadav @ Yadavendra Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) case on September 15, 2025, wherein, Advocate Yadvenra Kumar Yadav had challenged the illegal appointment the public prosecutor of Bhojpur. Earlier, the case was before Justice Ashutosh Kumar. The other four respondents were: the Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, Joint Secretary Cum In-Charge Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate, Bhojpur and Advocate Rana Pratap Singh, Bhojpur. The case was filed in the High Court on June 19, 2025 and registered on June 25, 2025.
Justice Bajanthri observed that Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) is not maintainable in service matters which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions. There was reasonable answer when the Court made a pointed query as to the availability of any decision of the Court on the maintainability of Public Interest Writ Petition (PIL), in service matters. Justice Bajanthri recalled that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, 1998 (7) SCC 273, has dealt with an issue, as to whether a PIL, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal and held that in service matter PIL should not be entertained, the inflow of so called PILs involving service matter continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained.
After considering the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe in para 18, 19 and 21 as follows:-''18. Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Supreme Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-“5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression public interest litigation. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), public interest is defined thus: Public interest.(1) A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
In Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), public interest is defined as follows: Public interest. Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.
In Janata Dal case (1992 (4) SCC 305, the Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, this Court has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331, para 53) The expression litigation means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ?PIL? means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. 8. In para 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.334) "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold." In para 98 of the judgment, it was further pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) While the Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.
In subsequent paras of the judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109). It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.
Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts.
In Dr. B.Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Supreme Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
In Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, JT 2005 (5) SC 389, the Supreme Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
In Indian Consumers Welfare Council vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2005 (3) L.W. 522, the above Council, filed a public interest writ petition, challenging a notification, issued by the 2nd respondent therein, by which, applications were invited, from degree holders, with degree in education, and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent therein, to appoint only those teachers, who were trained in teaching primary sections, for handling classes from 1st to 7th standards, to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. Following the decision in Gopal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in
2005 J.T. [5] SC 389, the Court ordered as follows:-“This is a public interest litigation in respect of a service matter. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no public interest litigation lies in service matters, the last decision being Gopal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005 J.T. [5] SC 389. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”
At this juncture, it is necessary to recall Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:-“141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.-- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
In this a backdrop, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the arbitrary and illegal appointment of Rana Pratap Singh as Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur District (Ara) via Letter No. 3483 dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar which was contrary to Supreme Court's judgements cited above.
The appointment was challenged on the grounds of absence of mandatory consultation between the District Magistrate and Sessions Judge as required under Section 18(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), 2023. It has been pointed out that the appointment is based on an outdated panel of 11 advocates-two of whom had passed away. It has violated fair representation norms. There was suppression of a pending criminal case by Rana Pratap Singh, the appointee, rendering him ineligible. There has been illegal retrospective application of the Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023, to a selection process which was initiated in 2021. It has been submitted to the High Court that despite representations submitted by the petitioner and others highlighting these grave irregularities, no corrective action has been taken by the authorities.
It all began when the Law Department, Government of Bihar issued Letter No. 7117 dated December 29, 2020 seeking a panel of advocates for the Public Prosecutor. Subsequent to that on District Magistrate issued Memo No. 1862 dated December 31, 2020 inviting applications by January 30, 2021. On July 27, 2021 the initial panel of names was sent to the Law Department. But on September 16, 2021, a Memo No. 5188 was issued instructing the cancellation of the earlier process and re-advertisement. On July 27, 2021, District Magistrate issued Memo No. 1769 for cancellation and and re-advertisement (extended by 2 months). On October 5, 2021, a new information was brought out seeking fresh applications. On April 12, 2022, the final panel of 11 advocates was submitted via Letter No. 866 by DM, Bhojpur. On 03.09.2022, Advocate Surendra Kumar Chaudhary (Kurmi caste) passed away. On 02.12.2023, criminal case against Rana Pratap Singh (Piro P.S. Case No. 213/1990) disposed of. On 02.07.2024 Secretary to Government of Bihar issued a letter with regard to Rule 6 (3) under Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023 requiring mandatory IT Returns of the last three years. The Law Department issued Memo No. 4332 dated 11.07.2024 to all District Magistrates and Sessions Judges, directing that, in view of the Bihar Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2023, and all desirous candidates were required to submit their Income Tax Returns for the preceding three financial years. Notably, on 31.07.2024, Advocate Hiralal Prasad (Koiri caste), one of the 11 advocates passed away.
The following names of Advocates were recommended by D.M. Bhojpur for appointment of Public Prosecutor, Bhojpur at Ara: (1) Nageshwar Dubey (2) Ram Suresh Singh (3) Sardar Virendra Singh (4) Sanjay Kumar Singh (5) Rana Pratap Singh (6) Uday Narayan Prasad (7) Maharana Pratap Singh (8) Hiral Lal Prasad (died on July 31, 2024), (9) Ram Babu Prasad (10) Parashuram Chaudhari (11) Surendra Kumar Chaudhari (died on September 3, 2022).
The petitioner has raised the following substantial questions of law:
a. Whether the Letter under Challenge is without Jurisdiction?
b. Whether the appointment of a new Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur was done as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of BNSS and the New Bihar Law Officer Engagement Rule, 2023?
c. Whether the appointment of Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur was made on the basis of the Panel Names of eleven advocates prepared in 2022?
d. Whether in view of the fact that the two advocates whose names had appeared in the Panel of 11 Advocates had died, can the same be treated as be Valid Panel?
e. Whether the appointment of the Public Prosecutor for Bhojpur is without consultation as contemplated under Section 18(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
f. Whether in view of the facts that the Respondent No. 5 suppressed the pendency of the Criminal Case against him as required under Clause 13 of the Biodata, and thus disqualified him for the appointment?
After the Patna High Court refused to hear the prayers as a PIL, a fresh petition has been filed in the Patna High Court with similar prayers.
No comments:
Post a Comment