Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

This writ petition is filed by four petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, against the selection and appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 as Professors and Associate Professors in different subjects in 1st respondent-University.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed the instant writ petition in public interest. According to the petitioners, the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, were in total violation of eligibility criteria. It is not in dispute that the petitioners also participated in the selection process for the posts of Professors and Associate Professors in different subjects and they were not selected by the 1st respondent.

3. In this backdrop, at the outset, Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-University raised a preliminary objection that a public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters and the petitioners ought to have, if at all they were so interested, filed writ petitions for Quo Warranto. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Girijesh Shrivastava and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 707; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590; Bholanath Mukherjee & Others v. Ramakrishna Mission Veivekananda Centenary College and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 464 and Madanlal v. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2014 SC 3434.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not seeking any relief in their favour though they were not selected. In other words, he submitted that the petitioners are not seeking cancellation of the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and seeking their appointment in the place of those respondents. He submitted that the petitioners are in the field of education and they are interested in the future and career of the students in this State. The students are forced to take education in the colleges where respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are working as Professors and Associate Professors. He submitted that only qualified persons can be appointed as Professors or Associate Professors and since ineligible persons are appointed, they have filed the instant writ petition, in public interest, challenging their appointments. He also submitted that the Universities being temples of knowledge and academic excellence, where students go in pursuit of knowledge and for acquiring degrees, need teachers of high academic caliber to disseminate quality education and training in backward area, and since all these norms are being flouted by appointing respondent Nos. 5 to 10, who are not holding even minimum required qualification and, therefore, the petition, in the nature of public interest is maintainable.

5. He invited our attention to some paragraphs in the petition and also the counter/reply affidavits in support of his contention that the writ in the nature of PIL is filed in the singular facts and circumstances of the case and prayed for over ruling the preliminary objection. .

6. The Supreme Court in Girijesh Shrivastava's case (supra-1), considered the question whether P.I.L. is maintainable in service matters and in paragraphs 14 to 17, observed thus:

14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) No. 1520/2001 and WP (C) No. 63/2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter.

15. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-