HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1135 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjuli Srivastava, learned counsel for State Medical College, Sultanpur- respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. This petition has been filed allegedly in public interest making certain allegations against respondent no.4, who happens to be the Principal of State Medical College, Sultanpur. After going through the pleadings and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, what comes out is that the issue raised in this petition is two fold, firstly, with regard to the illegal appointments having been made by respondent no.4 of certain doctors on contractual basis, whose names are mentioned in the writ petition. Secondly, certain works having been got done for the college without inviting tenders through GEM portal. 3. Although Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate for State Medical College, Sultanpur has raised objection with regard to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Dubey, Prithvish Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Krishna Chandra Pathak .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) bonafide of the writ petitioner and the filing of this writ petition, what we find is that though there are allegations against certain doctors they have not been arrayed as opposite parties, therefore, whether those doctors who are alleged to have been engaged on contractual basis, though Shri Mehrotra states that one of them whose name is mentioned in paragraph 10 is a regularly appointed doctor and he has not been appointed by respondent no.4 but by the State Government, they are indulging in private practice and have their own hospitals or not cannot be considered in their absence. None of these doctors have been arrayed as opposite parties. Infact the grievance is not so much against the doctors but against respondent no.4 for having appointed such doctors on contractual basis. 4. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the procedure prescribed for engagement of doctors on contractual basis, so that we may ascertain as to what is the illegality but only to the extent it is permissible in a Public Interest Litigation, as, such matters pertaining to service conditions are ordinarily not cognizable in a Public Interest Litigation, no such procedure could be placed before us. Merely saying that illegal appointments have been made by respondent no.4 of these doctors, does not suffice. We must make it clear, as to whether these doctors, whose names figure in paragraph 9 to 13 of the writ petition, are engaging in private practice or not and whether it is permissible or not is not an issue which we have considered in this writ petition for the reasons already given herein-above. No illegality could be pointed out by the petitioner as regards any action of respondent no.4 with regard to such appointment. As regards other allegations of work having been got done without inviting tenders, our attention has been drawn to some information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Learned WPIL No. 1135 of 2025 2 counsel for the petitioner referred to point no.1 therein, according to which, some Aluminium work was got done at the State Medical College, Sultanpur without inviting tenders, however, it is not clear as to what was the work and its value, because every work need not be got done through GEM portal. Shri Gaurav Mehrota states that this information, even otherwise, is incorrect, as the work done was got done through GEM portal. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to a photograph annexed as Annexure no.6 at page 34 of the petition showing the name of respondent no.4 and the reference therein to Sanjeevani Hospital run by the wife of respondent no.4. However, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra states that the said board mentions the residence of respondent no.4 and not that he is practicing in Sanjeevani Hospital. He further states that now this board is not there and now respondent no.4 resides within the campus of the State Medical College. 6. All these issues cannot be gone into with such casual pleadings in this Public Interest Litigation. If there is a cause and sufficient proof, as regards indulgence in private practice whether by respondent no.4 or any other doctor, the petitioner may approach the State Government in this regard with adequate proof, which can be got enquired or looked into, as the case may be, but in the facts of this case, we see no reason to proceed any further as Public Interest Litigation. 7. We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as absolving any doctor or officer of State Medical College, Sultanpur of any irregularity or illegality in which he may be indulging in it. It is just that we have declined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation for the reasons given WPIL No. 1135 of 2025 3 herein-above. Our orders shall also not come in the way, if the State Government wishes to get any enquiry done into any allegations against any such doctor or officer, if there is a cause. 8. The Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, disposed of. November 11, 2025 Arnima WPIL No. 1135 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench