Manjula Chellur, C.J.

This public interest litigation is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, calling for the originals of Ext.P21 by which reinstating the 1st respondent and to quash the same;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing respondents 2 to 4 to act upon the recommendation as evident from Ext.P20;

iii) Declare that the 1st respondent is not eligible to be appointed in the post of Additional Legal Advisor of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau;

iv) Issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case; and

v) Allow this Writ Petition with costs.”

Several aspects regarding conduct of the first respondent herein are pointed out to substantiate the contentions raised in the writ petition. The main challenge is regarding reinstatement of first respondent in service as Additional Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur, who was earlier recommended to be terminated from services by the Director of Vigilance.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the main argument was with regard to maintainability of the writ petition since it pertains to subject of “service”, as the challenge is against reinstatement of the first respondent.

3. In brief, facts are necessarily to be narrated to understand the background in which the present petition is filed. Alleging conspiracy between the accused persons of vigilance cases related to a public sector undertaking cement company (Malabar Cements) and the first respondent a complaint was filed by the petitioner. It is alleged that first respondent made several calls from his mobile to accused persons and negotiated for Rupees Fifteen lakhs to write a favourable opinion exonerating all the accused in the case of Malabar Cements including the former Managing Director. Subsequently, on the opinion of the senior Government Pleader of Vigilance, High Court of Kerala Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, charge sheets were filed against all the accused persons by initiating prosecution proceedings. Petitioner claims to be a public spirited person whose ambition in life is to expose corrupt activities of Government officers and public servants.

4. On a complaint of the petitioner, FIR came to be registered against the first respondent. Based on the legal opinion of the Chief Legal Advisor, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, first respondent was suspended from service. The allegation was amassment of wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. Petitioner also narrates other aspects of the matter. Earlier he approached this Court seeking police protection when alleged threats were made to him by the first respondent. A writ petition came to be filed challenging suspension of the first respondent and Exhibits P16 and P17 are the interim orders in the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn when he was under suspension. First respondent got a provisional appointment subject to the result of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, when the writ petition was withdrawn, by suppressing the material facts from the court, he was able to get a favourable direction that if there is vacancy he could be considered for the same. In spite of the recommendation by the Director of Vigilance as per Exhibit P20 to terminate the services of the first respondent, he was reinstated as Additional Legal Advisor, VACB, Thrissur as per Exhibit P21.

5. First respondent was represented by senior counsel Mr.O.V.Radhakrishnan. Detailed counter affidavits along with several documents are filed by first and second respondents.

6. As against this, party respondent, who is arrayed as first respondent, places on record several facts describing them as reasons for filing this public interest litigation with ulterior motive. He also seriously challenges the maintainability of the very writ petition contending that it touches th