The Punjab & Haryana High Court has firmly reaffirmed that public interest litigation cannot be used as a vehicle to challenge individual service appointments, even when those appointments arise from tragic circumstances. This ruling underscores the doctrinal boundary between collective public grievances and personal employment disputes, reinforcing judicial restraint against the misuse of PIL as a procedural shortcut.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation challenging the grant of compassionate appointments to 34 individuals who were heirs or wards of persons killed in the 2018 Dussehra Day train tragedy in Amritsar. The appointments were made by the Government of Punjab through an order dated 25.07.2021, issued by the Under Secretary, Personnel, Department of Personnel (Personnel Policies-II Branch). The petitioner sought quashing of this order, alleging impropriety in the selection process and procedural irregularities.
Key Facts
- The train tragedy occurred on 18.10.2018, resulting in multiple fatalities
- The State Government issued compassionate appointment orders on 25.07.2021 to 34 eligible dependents
- The petitioner is not a direct beneficiary or heir of any victim
- No specific allegation of corruption, favoritism, or violation of statutory guidelines was pleaded
- The petitioner did not claim any personal legal right or interest in the appointments
- The petitioner appeared virtually through counsel, Mr. Rajinder Ghai
Procedural History
- 18.10.2018: Dussehra Day train tragedy in Amritsar
- 25.07.2021: Government of Punjab issued order granting compassionate appointments to 34 dependents
- CWP-PIL-147-2021: Filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the 25.07.2021 order
- 12.03.2026: Hearing conducted before Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the compassionate appointment order dated 25.07.2021, alleging that the appointments were granted without due process and in violation of established norms.
The Legal Issue
Can a public interest litigation be maintained to challenge the grant of compassionate appointments to individuals who are heirs of deceased government employees, when the petitioner has no personal stake in the outcome?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the compassionate appointments were granted in an arbitrary manner and that the process lacked transparency. He contended that such appointments, even if made under a welfare scheme, affect public resources and therefore fall within the domain of public interest. He relied on the general principle that any misuse of public funds or irregularities in state appointments can be challenged through PIL.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General for Punjab submitted that the appointments were made in accordance with the State’s compassionate appointment policy, which is a recognized welfare measure. He emphasized that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party, has no legal standing, and that the matter is purely a personal service dispute between the appointees and the State. He cited binding precedents to argue that PILs cannot be entertained to challenge individual service appointments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging the well-established jurisprudence on the misuse of PILs to ventilate personal grievances. It cited multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, including Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590, to emphasize that PILs are meant for enforcing public rights and not for resolving private disputes.
"A time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations."
The Court observed that the petitioner had no personal interest in the appointments, did not allege any violation of a public duty, and failed to demonstrate how the appointments affected the general public or violated any statutory mandate. The Court noted that the appointments were made under a recognized compassionate policy, and any challenge to their validity must be raised by the affected parties themselves through appropriate service remedies.
The Court further highlighted that the petitioner’s attempt to use PIL as a substitute for a writ petition under Article 226 or a service tribunal proceeding was an abuse of process. It emphasized that allowing such petitions would open floodgates for frivolous litigation, diverting judicial resources from genuine public interest matters.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court held that service disputes, including challenges to compassionate appointments, cannot be raised through public interest litigation. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000, to be deposited in the Poor Patients Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh.
What This Means For Similar Cases
PIL Cannot Be a Substitute for Service Remedies
- Practitioners must advise clients to file service-related challenges through appropriate forums: Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court under Article 226, or departmental appeals
- PILs filed solely to challenge individual appointments will be dismissed with costs
- No PIL will be entertained where the petitioner lacks locus standi and raises no public right
Courts Will Impose Costs for Frivolous PILs
- The Court explicitly endorsed imposition of exemplary costs to deter misuse
- Costs must be directed to public welfare funds, not to the State
- This precedent strengthens judicial authority to filter out disguised personal litigation
Compassionate Appointments Are Protected from Misuse
- Welfare schemes like compassionate appointments are not subject to public scrutiny unless systemic irregularities are proven
- Individual beneficiaries cannot be challenged by strangers to the transaction
- The State retains discretion in implementing welfare policies absent mala fide or arbitrariness
