RAMA BALLAV RATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Action of the State of Orissa and the Union of India in extending tenure of service of opp. party No. 3 after superannuation has been questioned by the petitioner alleging that such extension for the third time was actuated with mala fide, favouritism, nepotism and ulterior motives, and not on public ground which is sine qua non for such extension. Petitioner claims to have filed the petition in public interest as a Public Interest Litigation, It is urged that there was no semblance of public interest involved and there has been grouss misuse of the power of extension. Prayer has been made to delineate the powers, so that in future there is no recurrence of the unsavoury and undesirable situation which has arisen in the case at hand.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual and the statutory provision holding the field would suffice. Opp. party No. 3 while functioning -as the Chief Secretary of Orissa was given three extensions of six months' duration each under the first proviso to Sub -rule (1) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death -cum -Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (in short 'the Rules'). On completion of 58th year opp. party No. 3 was to retire on 31 -3 -1994. By orders dated 16 -3 -1964, 28 -9 -1994 and 30 -3 -1995 he was granted extension of service purportedly to be on public ground. Undisputedly such extension can be given in terms of the first proviso to Sub -rule (1) of Rule 16 of the Rules on public ground. The rule reads as follows : '16. Superannuation gratuity or pension : (1) A member of the Service shall be required compulsorily to retire from the service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years : Provided that he may be retained in service after the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years on public grounds which shall be recorded in writing - (a) for an aggregate period not exceeding six months by the State Government; and - - - - (b) for any period beyond six months, with the sanction of the Central Government : Provided further that a member of the Service shall not be retained in service beyond the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.' The petitioner asserts that such extension was not on any public ground whatsoever and opp. party No. 3, who enjoyed political clouts, managed to get the extensions from two different Governments headed by two political parties. This, according to the petitioner, shows that the opp. party No. 3 knows which side of the bread is to be buttered. It is submitted that whether in an imperialist Raj or in a democratic Raj, the Civil Service has been taught to act as a well -trained dog, and does so. Need is for snapping incestuous link between politicians and bureaucrats. Time has come to expose the boot -lickers who for their own perverse purpose change colours more frequently than the chameleon. It is more so in the case of those who make private gain at public cost. The Civil Servants enjoy a satisfactory partnership with those who inherited the mantle of Robert Clive and Warren Hastings Petitioner prayed for permission to look into the records dealing with extension. We shall deal with the acceptability of aforesaid prayer of petitioner infra.

(3.) BEFORE we grapple with the actual problem, we feel it necessary to keep the records straight so far as public interest aspects are concerned. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be public interest litigation or private interest litigation. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation, and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy him or his personal grudge and enmity. The Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by the apex Court in The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury and Ors. : AIR 1993 SC 892, A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner, but also with a clean hand, clean mind and a clean objective. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest any ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of 'public interest litigation' should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. Court must be careful to see that a member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold.