In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against Uttar Pradesh IAS Officer Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, who had lodged 66 First Information Reports (FIRs) against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Khan.
The PIL, filed by Vijay Kumar, alleged that Singh’s posting in Uttar Pradesh since 2015 was in violation of laws. However, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters, and only non-appointees can challenge the legality or extension of a successful candidate/officer.
Vijay Kumar sought directions from the Central government to consider his representation and act on the alleged illegal posting of Singh, citing violations of various rules. He argued that Singh’s continued posting and extensions in Uttar Pradesh were contrary to the All India Services Rules and the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rule.
However, the Court dismissed the plea, emphasizing that the present writ petition lacked maintainability. Consequently, the Court ordered the dismissal of the PIL along with the associated applications.
The case stemmed from Singh’s actions during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections when he initiated legal proceedings against Azam Khan and his son for purported violations of the model code of conduct. Khan, a prominent political figure, pleaded guilty and served time in jail in connection with these FIRs.
Currently serving as the Divisional Commissioner of Moradabad, Singh’s legal battles reflect the intricate intersection between administrative decisions and judicial oversight. Advocates Anuj Kumar Garg, Vipin Kumar, and Parul Verma represented petitioner Vijay Kumar, while Advocates Arjun Mahajan, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Neha Rai, and Rishabh Bhalla appeared for the Union of India.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in adjudicating matters of administrative law, ensuring adherence to legal frameworks governing public service appointments and postings. Despite the petitioner’s efforts to challenge Singh’s tenure, the Court’s decision reaffirms the boundaries within which PILs can be pursued in service-related disputes, thereby upholding principles of legal propriety and institutional integrity.