ORDER

1. The subject-matter of the dispute in this special leave petition is an interim order passed by the High Court by which it has, inter alia, stayed the operation of the rules framed by the State Government regarding recruitment of lecturers. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner State, the High Court should not have entertained the petition because of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India) and in particular para 99 thereof. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the litigation was really in the nature of public interest although the petitioners were interested themselves in the outcome of the litigation. They have relied upon the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra in this context. It appears to us from the nature of the dispute that the litigation could not be said to be a public interest litigation as the writ petitioners were prosecuting the litigation in their own interest. It would, therefore, be proper a for the High Court to have directed the petitioners to approach the State Administrative Tribunal, in view of the categoric di