ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling upon the respondent No. 1 to produce the record pertaining to its decision dated 31.12.2013, whereby the respondent No. 3 has been granted post superannuation extension of tenure as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of respondent No. 2 (BHEL). It is, further, prayed that, inter alia, a writ of Certiorari be issued quashing the said decision dated 31.12.2013 as being arbitrary and illegal. A mandamus is also sought directing the respondent No. 1 to follow the guidelines issued under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 by the DOPT in filling up the vacancy to the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of respondent No. 2 (BHEL).

(2.) At the threshold, Mr Maninder Singh, the learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 took the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the issues urged before this court are essentially those of a service related dispute and that no public interest litigation is maintainable under Article 226 in relation to a service matter. He placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme Court which have been noted in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava And Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 2010 10 SCC 707. He submitted that the only exception pointed out by the Supreme Court where a writ petition could be maintained in a service matter would be that of a writ of Quo Warranto where there has been a clear violation of statutory provisions or rules. He submitted that neither is the present writ styled as a writ of Quo Warranto nor is there any allegation that there has been a violation of any statutory provision. He, further, submitted that since the present matter does not come within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court, a writ of Certiorari styled as public interest litigation in a service matter cannot be entertained by this court and, therefore, the writ petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold.

(3.) Mr Parag P. Tripathi, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 (BHEL) submitted that there is a maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium' which translates to "where there is a right there is a remedy". He submitted that the right in the present case is that of the person who is directly affected of any other third party and, therefore, it is only the person aggrieved who can maintain a petition challenging the extension granted to respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1. He, therefore, supported the contention raised by Mr Maninder Singh that the writ petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold.