ORDER

1. None appears for the petitioners.

2. Regard being had to the lis put forth, we do not intend to further adjourn the matter.

3. The writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution, if we allow ourselves to say so, is absolutely the product of disgruntled minds obsessed with their own litigation. They have imagined situations which are beyond realm of any kind of justiciability. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 2 SCC 1] has clearly held that the President of India cannot be arrayed as a party to the litigation. Despite the said pronouncement, the petitioners being emboldened by some kind of imaginative faculty have described the President as Respondent No.1.

4. The prayer in this writ petition is basically for issue of a quo warranto declaring that the respondent no.2 is not eligible to hold the post or alternatively to issue a writ of mandamus not to continue on the post in question. It has also made allegations with regard to the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent herein.

5. The petitioners who are litigants had approached this Court in certain special leave petitions and could not meet wit