Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. )
1. Both these writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 6621 (M/B) of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ''First Petition') and Writ Petition No. 9714 (M/B) of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ''Second Petition') invole common question of law and facts and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. However, for referring facts, the pleadings in First Petition are being taken into consideration.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging office memorandum issued by respondents granting extension to Sri Alok Ranjan, IAS (respondent-4), working at the time of filing of writ petition as Chief Secretary of U.P., for a period of three months.
4. Respondent-4 was going to attain age of superannuation of 60 years and retire on 31.03.2016. Petitioner came to know of this fact through an official twitter account on 23.03.2016 that on the recommendation of State Government, Government of India has granted three months' extension to respondent-4. Petitioner being personally affected by proposed extension of respondent-4, made a representation dated 28.02.2016 to Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India and Karmik and Niyukti Department, U.P. Government (hereinafter referred to as 'DOPT')which was forwarded by a Joint Secretary to Sri Rajiv Kumar, Additional Secretary on 29.02.2016. It is said that there are office memorandums dated 18.05.1977, 13.04.1988 and 09.12.2002 explaining circumstances in which extension may be allowed. Overriding consideration therein is 'public interest' and further that two conditions must be satisfied: (i) other officers are not ripe enough to take over that job; (ii) retiring officer possess outstanding merit.
5. Petitioner claimed that extension of service to respondent-4 is influenced with his access to political persons and pleasure he enjoyed of political party in power in State. There exists a quid pro quo between respondent-4 and top political leaders of State. There are several persons in Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IAS') in U.P. Cadre who are experienced enough to take job and they shall stand denied an opportunity to serve on said post if respondent-4 continues on extension.
6. Extension in question is not good in the interest of State Administration, likely to cause heart-burn and would induce inter service rivalries. It is bound to give wrong signals of nepotism and favouritism and open vista for future Quid-Pro-Quo. Such extension is bound to set wrong precedence, encourage other officers to toe political line and agree to all kinds of their wrong dictates so as to remain in their good books and get extension and all other favours.
7. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') has filed more than one FIRs and subsequently charge sheets against respondent-4 when he was working as Managing Director, NAFED between 01.10.2003 to 31.12.2007. It is alleged that he had advanced non-agricultural loans to the tune of Rs. 5000 Crores causing loss of Rs. 1600 Crores to NAFED. Enquiry was conducted by retired Hon'ble Justice R.R. Mishra, being a single member commission and pursuant thereto FIRs were registered. In case No. RCEOU-1-2007 in which respondent-4 was main accused along with others, charge sheet under Section 120-B read with 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC was pending trial in CBI Court, Delhi.
8. Petitioner also pointed out in representation that respondent-4 is also accused in FIR No. RCBE/2006-E-0007 dated 15.12.2008 filed by CBI, Mumbai unit in CBI Court, Mumbai, but same was quashed by Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 220 of 2010 (Alok Ranjan Vs. CBI & Ors.) vide judgment dated 05.05.2015 but Delhi matter is still pending. Petitioner further said that even Delhi case has been quashed by Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2016 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 456 of 2012. However, mere quashing of the Criminal proceedings would not dilute the fact that respondent-4 was found guilty in a judicial commission enquiry and criminal cases were registered against him. He was also found in notorious tie-ups with private businessmen. Commission also found that unauthorized business ranging from iron ore export, mobile and even sponsoring of beauty contests were given loans by NAFED, in stark contradiction to the policies of organization. Respondent-4 is also taking advantage of his position by trying to get Yash Bharti award to his wife Surabhi Ranjan which is nothing but a gross misuse of authority on his part. Petitioner made several complaints against respondent-4 but ignoring all these aspects, extension has been granted which is wholly illegal.
9. With regard to locus standi petitioner submits that she is resident of Lucknow and improper appointment of Chief Secretary is bound to affect her mentally, socially and physically. She is a social activist and wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, an IPS of U.P. Cadre against whom false criminal cases have been lodged and being Chief Secretary of State, respondent-4 enjoy authority to affect investigation in those matters. Respondent-4 played personally an improper role while approving open Vigilance Enquiry by U.P. Vigilance Establishment against petitioner's husband and has pivotal role in suspension and departmental enquiry against petitioner's husband.
10. Writ petition has been contested by State of U.P. (respondent-2) by filing a detailed preliminary objection challenging petitioner's claim that she is a directly aggrieved party to maintain aforesaid writ petition. Several authorities have been referred to in written preliminary objection about maintainability of writ petition stating that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain present writ petition.
11. A separate affidavit has been filed in purported compliance of this Court's order dated 12.04.2016 whereby manner in which matter of extension of respondent-4 has been considered and extension has been granted. Relevant documents have been placed on record.
12. It is said that Chief Minister Sri Akhilesh Yadav, sent a letter dated 16.01.2016 to Prime Minister giving reasons justifying extension of service of respondent-4 as Chief Secretary and a request was made to allow extension for a period of six months. Thereafter Government of India vide letter dated 23.03.2016 has informed Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow about its decision of granting three months extension under third proviso of Rule 16 (1) of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'AISDRB Rules, 1958') w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Consequent order has been issued by State Government on 30.03.2016. It is also pointed out that in past also similar extensions have been granted to other Chief Secretaries namely, Sri S.C. Choudhary, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Dr. Varesh Sinha, Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Smt. Shakuntla Jaku, Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana; Smt. Rinchen Ongmu, Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim; Dr. D.M. Spolla, Chief Secretary, Government of NCT Delhi, Sri Kaushik Mukherjee, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka; and Sri C.S. Ranjan, Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan.
13. Respondent-1 has also filed a short counter affidavit wherein besides challenging locus standi of petitioner in maintaining present writ petition, it has been further stated that office memorandum dated 18.05.1977 and 13.04.1988 issued by Establishment Division of DOPT pertains to Central Civil Services under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not to members of All India Services who are governed by All India Service Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'AIS Act, 1951') and Rules framed thereunder.
14. We have heard Sri Ashok Pande, Advocate for petitioner, Sri. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Chandra and Sri Udai Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Sri S.B. Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Government of India and perused the record.
15. Admittedly, petitioner is neither holder of a civil post in State of U.P. nor in Government of India nor is otherwise herself likely to be affected on account of extension of service of respondent-4 so as to deny her any career advancement benefit available to members of IAS who may claim themselves to be contemporary of respondent-4.
16. Petitioner's husband is a member of Indian Police Services (hereinafter referred to as 'IPS') against whom it is said that some departmental inquiry and criminal matters are pending but he is not before us. The factum that petitioner is a social worker would not help her in any manner for the reason that in order to maintain writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India by a person claiming to be aggrieved party, it is bound to show how an order which is subjected to writ petition, is likely to affect any civil right of petitioner.
17. In the present case respondent-4 at the time of filing of writ petition was working as Chief Secretary and his functioning as Chief Secretary admittedly was not objected by petitioner till he attains age of superannuation. If petitioner had no valid objection in functioning of respondent-4 as Chief Secretary till he attains age of 60 years, we do not find as to how an extension granted to respondent-4 would adversely affect her.
18. So far as grievance of petitioner that such extension may deprive some other eligible officers in getting benefit of posting or appointment on such pivotal key post, it is matter of concern to those persons and their cause of action cannot be canvassed by petitioner claiming herself to be aggrieved person for the reason that something which cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.
19. We also feel it appropriate to observe also that order of extension of service to respondent-4 is nothing but an instance relating to service and challenging such an order, a writ petition by way of public interest litigation would not have been maintainable and to avoid this situation writ petition has been drafted in a circuitous and vexatious manner alleging that petitioner is personally aggrieved person though she is not. It is a clear lack of bonafide and ingenuity on her part cannot be appreciated.
20. Whenever a writ petition under Article 226 is filed the Court must see whether the person who has approached it invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is aggrieved person i.e. a person who has legal right which entitles him to any of the right and such right has been infringed. In order to maintain writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari the Court may proceed when the jurisdiction is invoked by a person aggrieved except of the cases where some public interest litigation is involved. The term 'aggrieved person' is too specious and depends upon the facts of the particular matter. In the matter relating to service the petitioner must show nexus with the action complained and his own interest/ right complained to be infringed or violated.
21. In Amanulla & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, AIR 2016 SC 1871 the Court defining the word locus standi states that it is a latin term and its general meaning is 'place of standing'. In the concise Oxford English Dictionary the term locus standi means 'the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a Court'. The traditional view of locus standi has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected as standing before the Court i.e. to say he only has a right to move the Court for seeking justice. Later with justice oriented approach the rule of locus standi has been relaxed so as to extend justice to those who individually may not come to the Court. Despite the fact the term locus standi has been given a much elastic and extended meaning but in the matter related to service still the consistent view is that Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters.
22. As we have already discussed neither petitioner is in service of State or Central Governments or otherwise nor it has been shown that any individual right of the petitioner is affected adversely and what she is complaining is about other members of IAS or her husband but it is not a case that they are not capable of approaching the Court but once chosen not to approach the Court themselves the petitioner as a busy body, cannot claim herself to be a protector of non-complainants so as to maintain this writ petition challenging the extension in service of respondent no. 4 on the post of Chief Secretary of U.P. Government.
23. Be that as it may. We have also examined matter on merit. Admittedly power of extension of service to a member of All India Services holding post of Chief Secretary has been conferred under third proviso to Rule 16 (1) of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1958'). These rules have been framed in exercise of powers under AIS Act, 1951 which governs condition of service of members of All India Service, namely, IAS, IPS and IFS etc.
24. Alleged Office Memorandum dated 09.12.2002 has been issued by Government of India in respect to Central Government Servants and a perusal of said office memorandum dated 09.12.2002 shows that fundamental Rules, 1956 and other provisions are applicable to all Civil Servants employed by Government of India other than those governed by AIS Act, 1951 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, reference to aforesaid office memorandum is clearly mischievous for the reason that apparently and from a bare reading it is evident that this office memorandum has no application with regard to extension of service to a Chief Secretary governed by AIS Act, 1951 and Rules framed thereunder. Similar is the position in regard to those office memorandum mentioned in writ petition. Now, we come to provision under which extension has been granted which reads as under:-
"Rule 16 (1):-
Provided also that a Member of the Service holding the post of Chief Secretary to a State Government may be given extension of service for a period not exceeding six months on the recommendation made by the concerned State Government with full justification and in public interest, with the prior approval of the Central Government."
25. Only requirement under Rule is that an extension can be granted to a person who is holding post of Chief Secretary to State Government and that too not beyond six months. It requires that State Government must make a recommendation with full justification and in public interest. With prior approval of Central Government, such an extension can be granted.
26. In this present case, Chief Minister of State of U.P. made a recommendation to Prime Minister giving reasons/justification for extension to respondent-4. Request was made for granting extension for a period of six months. Reasons given in para 2, 3, 4 and 5 refer to various important projects and schemes launched by State of U.P. in which respondent-4 is said to have an important role and his continuance, therefore, was desirable. Under Rules Government of India is only required to grant approval and looking to justification and public interest involved in the matter, Government of India granted such approval vide order dated 23.03.2016 whereupon order of extension has been issued by State Government under Rule 16 (1) third proviso to Rules, 1958 on 30.03.2016. With regard to justification for extension it is satisfaction of State Government and it does not require examination by Central Government like a quasi-judicial or judicial authority.
27. Launching of schemes or pendency of schemes referred to in State Government letter dated 16.01.2016 is not in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that respondent-4 has no role therein. Moreover requirement of Chief Secretary and the person who is competent to hold said post is ultimately satisfaction of Executive Government. It is not in dispute that respondent-4 has been functioning as Chief Secretary for quite some time meaning thereby his utility, efficiency and capability to function as Chief Secretary for all this period had never been in dispute. If that be so, for the purpose of extension, a justification in the eyes and view of Government is only required and not a justification of any third persons, stranger to the process. It is not case that Central Government has not applied its mind. Criminal cases said to have been registered against respondent-4 one matter had already been quashed by Bombay High Court and another matter subsequently got closed. Even otherwise mere pendency of criminal case cannot dis-entitle a person for extension when his posting and appointment as Chief Secretary before extension was not vitiated for that reason.
28. The process of extension of service is pure administrative function in which two Governments are involved i.e. State Government and Central Government. The reason being that a member of All India Services is appointed by the Central Government but thereafter he is allotted a particular State Cadre and function normally in that State. Therefore, his merit, efficiency and continuity is to be judged by the State Government where he had been functioning and when the State Government requires extension of an officer holding the post of Chief Secretary, it is the satisfaction of the State Government regarding utility of such an officer for some further period but the rule only contemplates the administrative control of the Central Government since officer has been appointed by the Central Government to look into the request of the State Government and thereafter convey its approval for such an extension. This entire process, in our view, is purely an administrative function of the two Governments and is not to be examined by a Court as if it is sitting in appeal over the request or the approval of the two Governments. In the absence of any evident malafide well substantiated and that too in an appropriate case raised by a person having locus standi in the matter, we find that in the matter of extension under 3rd Proviso of Rule 16 (1) of Rules, 1958 which is confined to the highest executive officer of the State, our view is that there is no scope for judicial interference so as to examine the matter whether the justification given by the Government have merit or not or whether the Government of India has looked into such request with objective consideration subject to judicial review.
29. This assumption on the part of petitioner is clearly erroneous and in our view scope of judicial review should not be extended to such an extent that even minimal administrative function may not be possible independently by the executive. Obviously if a member of service would have come and raised his grievance that he has been attempted to be superseded or made to retire by exercising power maliciously the scope of examination by the Court would be different and available but the present case does not satisfy such requirement.
30. More so even recommendation made by State Government giving reasons and justification for extension has been considered by Central Government and thereafter it has granted its approval. Scope of judicial review is extremely limited and only if it not be shown that act of grant of approval or extension is vitiated on account of any malafide or is otherwise without jurisdiction or there is some otherwise apparent error on the face of record, we do not find that kind of exercise made under Rues 16 (1) third proviso can be interfered by a Court as if it is sitting in appeal. The application of mind on the part of Central Government in the case in hand is evident from the fact that State Government made request for six months' extension but the Central Government has granted only for three months. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a mechanical exercise on the part of the Central Government.
31. In view of above, the writ petitions are nothing but an act lacking bonafide on the part of petitioners. It is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law.
32. Both writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- each.
Order Date :- 26.10.2016 Anupam-Pradeep/-