CUTTACK: The bench of the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court has strongly deprecated the misuse of PIL to challenge routine administrative decisions and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on five petitioners for filing what it termed an “ill-conceived petition” questioning the posting of a public officer.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman observed that the petition was a clear abuse of the PIL jurisdiction. “It is an apparent misuse of the remedy by way of Public Interest Litigation where the posting of a public officer is sought to be challenged on one count or another,” the court said.
The judges further noted, “Giving an artificial colour of the Public Interest Litigation and creating an illusory cause of action with the clever draftsmanship, the five petitioners have sought to achieve a destination, which is foreclosed under the Public Interest Litigation.”
Dismissing the PIL, the bench directed the petitioners to deposit Rs 50,000 with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority within three weeks. The amount, the court ordered, shall be invested for providing better facilities and amenities to the juveniles, who are living in Juvenile Homes in the state.
Emphasising settled principles of service jurisprudence, the court underlined that transfer and posting are purely administrative matters. “The transfer is an incident of service. In relation to a public employment, it is within the domain of the authority to post his officers at any place within the district in the larger interest of the public,” the order uploaded on Wednesday stated.
It added that the posting of an officer, even by way of transfer, is within the realm of the service jurisprudence as the authorities are the best persons to decide in this regard. The bench cautioned against allowing PILs to intrude into governance and administration. “The Public Interest Litigation cannot be stretched too far to encroach upon the administration and the management of the authorities, more particularly in relation to the posting of its officers or the employees at a suitable place,” it said.
The court warned that permitting such challenges would lead to chaos, observing that a handful of persons cannot approach the court with an intent to dictate the government in the matter of transferring and/or posting its employees or officers. Rejecting the petitioners’ claim that government guidelines barred officers from being posted in their hometowns, the court noted that an artificial cause of action has been created.