- (1.) The petitioner, who is a retired Deputy Commandant General in the Home Guards Department, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in a public interest litigation for (i) a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated 9 December, 2014 for the commencement of the selection process for recruitment of Home Guards and; (ii) for a writ in the nature of mandamus for framing rules under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Home Guards Adhiniyam, 1963 (U.P. Act No.29 of 1963).
(2.) We are not inclined to entertain a public interest litigation relating to the recruitment of Home Guards having due regard to the caution expressed in several judgments of the Supreme Court including in a recent judgment in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 wherein it was observed as follows: "14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the frame work of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunanchalam2; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.3; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal4, and Amar Singh v. Union of India5). 15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra6; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra7 and Neetu v. State of Punjab8)."
(3.) Another public interest litigation (All India Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of U.P. & Ors.9) was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad. The order of the Division Bench reads as follows: "The petitioners had earlier filed a petition purportedly in public interest which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 5 December, 2014. The petitioners had raised certain issues relating to the service of Home Guards in the State. This Court, inter alia, observed as follows: "Insofar as the other reliefs are concerned, many of them pertain to the framing of appropriate service conditions. In this regard, there is now a settle rule of restraint, under which a PIL in regard to service matters or service conditions should not be entertained. All the issues raised by the petitioners relate to the question of policy. No affected individual is before the Court. In this view of the matter, since the petitioners have raised a generalised grievance, we leave it open to them to move a representation at an appropriate level before the State Government." At the same time, the Court clarified that if there is any subsisting grievance, it was open to the petitioners or the persons aggrieved to independently take it up with the State Government through the Director General of Home Guards for appropriate remedial action. Again the petitioners have moved one more public interest litigation on the subject. These are matters pertaining to service, which we decline to entertain. Following the earlier decision, we leave it open to the aggrieved individual to take up the matter by invoking the appropriate remedy available in law. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.";