APHC010319042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 149 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3584] Nagendra Kumar Bijili ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Ankalla Prudhvi Raj Advocate for Respondent: GP for Services-I CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th July 2026 LISA GILL, CJ: Petitioner has filed this writ petition purportedly in public interest challenging notification dated 01.06.2026, inviting applications through APMSRB website for post of Hospital Administrators to the extent that basic qualification of possessing an M.B.B.S or an M.D.S by candidates as prescribed is illegal and arbitrary, thus should be set aside. 2. It is pleaded that respondents should be directed to consider candidates possessing a graduate degree in any discipline for recruitment to post of Hospital Administrators under control of 2nd respondent to serve Government Hospitals. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No:149 of 2026 3. Perusal of Writ Petition reveals that undoubtedly issues sought to be raised therein pertain to purely service/recruitment matter, which cannot be agitated by way of a public interest litigation. 4. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655, Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu, (2020) 18 SCC 673, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273. In case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590, it has been held as under: “11. As noted supra, 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. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 1998 (4) SCT 213 (SC), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 5. We take note of the fact that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and others MANU/SCOR/144116/2023 has observed that it is a 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No:149 of 2026 debatable issue as to whether a PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters and that said question of law is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. 6. However, as on date there is no such order or decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court subsequently where the matter may have been settled, therefore, judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court as detailed in foregoing paragraphs hold the field and are binding on this Court. 7. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition filed in public interest is not maintainable. It is open to any aggrieved individual/person to lay a challenge in accordance with law, if so advised. 8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No:149 of 2026 HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition (PIL) No:149 of 2026 DATE : 07.07.2026 AKN 80