S.M.Syed Iqbal v. The Registrar University of Madras Chepauk, Chennai – 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 25.02.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALW.P. NO. 4024 OF 2008ANDM.P. NO. 1 OF 2008S.M.Syed Iqbal.. Petitioner - Vs -1. The Registrar University of Madras Chepauk, Chennai – 5.2. The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai – 9... Respondents Writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ ofdeclaration declaring that the entire selection process of thefirst respondent in pursuance of its advertisement in "TheHindu" dated 10.9.2007 in reference No.D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD 138dated 8.9.2007 to select the teaching faculties for its variousdepartments without complying with the "Tamil Nadu BackwardClass Christians and Backward Class Muslims (Reservation ofseats in Educational Institutions including Private EducationalInstitutions and Appointments or Posts in the Service under theState) Act, 2007, as null and void and illegal.For Petitioner : Mr. A.SirajuddinFor Respondents: Mr. P.S.Raman, AAG, assisted by D.Srinivasan, AGPORDERS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.This public interest litigation has been preferred by thepetitioner for a declaration that the entire selection processstarted by the 1st respondent, University of Madras, pursuant toadvertisement published in the newspaper "The Hindu" on10thSept., 2007, in Ref. No.D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD 138, dated 8th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sept., 2007, for selection of teaching faculties in its variousdepartments without complying with the Tamil Nadu Backward ClassChristians and Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of seats inEducational Institutions including Private EducationalInstitutions and Appointments or Posts in the Service under theState) Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2007') isnull and void and illegal.2. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary ofTamil Nadu Thouhid Jamath, a registered organisation. He, alongwith other members, organised various forms of protests,conferences, public meetings, etc., to get reservation forMuslims in Tamil Nadu. It is stated that he is filing the writpetition as public interest litigation to save the interest ofnumber of members of his community.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmitted that the Madras University is a statutory body and issupposed to act in terms with the rules framed by the State.According to him, in view of lesser representation, the Act inquestion has been framed to grant reservation in favour ofbackward communities belonging to Muslim and Christian religion.The grievance of the petitioner is that Madras Universitypublished the impugned advertisement in the newspaper "TheHindu" dated 10th Sept., 2007, in Ref. No.D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD138, dated 8th Sept., 2007, to select teaching faculties for itsvarious departments and the same has been done without complyingwith the provisions of the Act, 2007. It was prayed to declaresuch selection as null and void and illegal.4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalfof the State referred to the pleading made in the writ petitionand submitted that the writ petition has been preferred by thepetitioner in his individual capacity and that no publicinterest is involved. On factual aspect also it was shown thatAct, 2007, is not applicable in respect of the posts advertised.It was brought to the notice of the Court that University ofMadras originally invited applications for teaching facultiesaforesaid vide its advertisement published on 11th May, 2006. Acopy of the advertisement was produced. He also refer to theimpugned advertisement dated 10th Sept., 2007, wherein at NoteNo.4 below the advertisement, following information has beengiven :-"Note:4.Those who had applied in response to ourearlier advertisement dt. 10.05.2006 and15.09.2006 shall apply again, with updatedinformation and enclosures. However, theyare exempted from payment of applicationfees."This was shown to suggest that the present advertisement isin continuation of the earlier advertisement of post notified on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10th May, 2006 and 15th Sept., 2006. He also placed reliance onG.O. ms. No.241 dated 29th Oct., 2007, whereby reservation ofappointment in public service, fixation of percentage ofreservation for backward class Christian and backward classMuslims were communicated. By the said order, the Government,while directed that the 200 point roster shall be given effectfrom 15th Sept., 2007, it has been made clear that the vacanciesarising on and from 15th Sept., 2007, shall be filled up as persuch roster. It was submitted that the original Tamil NaduOrdinance No.4/07 was published followed by the Act, which hascome into effect from prospective date for filling up thevacancies arising on and from 15th Sept., 2007. As the presentvacancies are of the earlier period, which were notified on 10thMay, 2006 and 15th Sept., 2006, the Act, 2007, for reservationcannot be given effect in respect of such vacancies.Learned Additional Advocate General for the State, furthersubmitted that the present writ petition has not been filed inpublic interest, but a publicity interest litigation andreferred to a news item published on 7th Feb., 2008, in avernacular Tamil Newspaper "Dina Thanthi". In the saidnewspaper report, before filing of the writ petition (presentedon 5th Feb., 2008 and filed on 14th Feb., 2008) it appears thatthe matter was reported to the newspaper, which by itspublication informed that a writ petition in public interest hasbeen filed in the High Court for implementation of 3.5%reservation each for backward class Christians and Muslims inall educational institutions. It was submitted that the filingof the writ petition in petitioner's individual capacity, inrespect of a matter relating to service and the publication inthe newspaper clearly shows that it is not a public interestlitigation, but a litigation preferred by the petitioner in theinterest of publicity as given in various newspapers.5. We have heard the parties, noticed the rival contentionsand perused the records including the copy of the newspaperpublication as produced before us.6. Now it is settled law that no public interest litigationis maintainable with regard to service matter. This was broughtto the notice of the counsel for the petitioner to show that thepetition is not maintainable, but the counsel for the petitionerinsisted to place detailed background of reservation policy infavour of one or other community.In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu – Vs – Jitendra KumarMishrai reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273, the Supreme Court heldthat in service matters PIL should not be entertained.Similar was the observation made by Supreme Court in GurpalSingh – Vs – State of Punjab reported in 2005 (5) SCC 136,wherein the Supreme Court held that in service matters publicinterest litigation cannot be filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In a recent case of Seema Dhamdhere – Vs – State ofMaharashtra reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 489 (SC), while reiteratingearlier decision, the Supreme Court observed that it would bedesirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitionsand dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in theright direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do nothave the approval of the Court.7. At the time of hearing and discussion, this was observedby the Court orally, but the counsel for the petitionercontinued to highlight the reservation policy in favour of acommunity, as stated above. From the submissions as made andthe newspaper publication, it appears that the case was filednot in public interest, but with a view to get some publicity,though the present writ petition is not maintainable under thecaption "Public Interest Litigation" as it relates toappointment in the service of Madras University.8. For the reason aforesaid, while we dismiss the writpetition, also impose a cost of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) on the petitioner for payment in favour of the Tamil NaduState Legal Services Authority, Chennai, to be paid within sixweeks. In case of non-payment, it will be open to the Stateauthorities and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority torecover the amount from the petitioner. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Let a copy of thisorder be also communicated to the Chief Secretary of the Stateand the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal ServicesAuthority for their information.GLNSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Registrar University of Madras Chepauk, Chennai – 5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai – 9.3. The Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai.4. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority Chennai.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.10128+ 1 cc to M/s. Kandavadivel Doraisamy, Advocate SR No. 9964+ 1 cc to M/s. Siraj & Siraj, Advocate SR No. 9944SSK(CO)SR/28.2.2008 ORDER IN W.P. NO. 4024 OF 2008