The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for correction of all illegalities and may be dismissed if the petitioner's conduct dis-entitles him from invoking the jurisdiction.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is a clear case of abuse of process of court in the name of writ petition for Quo Warranto. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law by taking benefit of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

3. The facts which came out from the writ petition are that the petitioner is of the age of 66 years and is belonging to caste Suthar. According to the petitioner, he came to know about some forgery committed by the respondent no.6 in getting Government employment 37 years ago, in the year 1972, that too on the post of junior carpenter. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.6 is also of the caste of Suthar and is of the age of 67 years. The petitioner and respondent no.6 are both residents of Bikaner City. It has not been disclosed as to from when the petitioner is knowing the respondent no.6 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he came to know about the respondent no.6 in the year 2007 and immediately, he started looking into the service record of the respondent no.6 who was appointed in the year 1973 on the post of Junior Carpenter. The petitioner's efforts clearly reveal that he tried to search each and every department from where he could have got any information about the respondent no.6 and not only about the respondent no.6 but also about his brother. He went on submitting applications under the provisions of Right to Information Act and even preferred appeal under the provisions of Right to Information Act and obtained more information. The petitioner then obtained several documents in relation to service tenure and working of the respondent no.6 as well as about the age of the respondent no.6 and even for the age of brother of the respondent no.6 and about the age of the respondent no.6's son and also obtained the copies of several documents. I need not to refer them in detail and number of documents and pages will be sufficient to show that to what extent the petitioner had grudge against the respondent no.6 and to see that he should not remain in Government employment though he was appointed in the year 1973 and by this time, he has completed 36 years period in service. The total documents are 27 and complete writ petition is running in almost 100 pages. The petitioner's contention is that there was no post in existence on which the respondent no.6 was given appointment by the Government department. At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that the respondent no.6 was appointed in the year 1973 and his appointment is being challenged in the year 2009 by the petitioner as according to the petitioner, any one can file the writ of quo warranto. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the respondent no.6's date of birth has not been recorded in the service record and the respondent no.6 gave some forged document to prove his date of birth to the department. The petitioner's submits that the date of birth of respondent no.6's son and brother clearly shows that the respondent no.6 was not born on 15.6.1949. The contention of the petitioner is that in a writ of quo warranto, any citizen can prefer writ petition and there may not be personal interest of the petitioner because such person is asking to do the lawful act and seeking to save the State exchequer and no person has right to hold any public office or work in public employment unless authorised by law.

4. There is no dispute about the proposition that in certain cases, the persons who may not have any personal interest may approach the Court for any relief which depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. But here in this case, it is not a case where the petitioner has no personal interest and this Court has no hesitation in observing that the petitioner has personal interest and that interest is to see that the respondent no.6 be harmed in the name of saving any public money or to see that no person should hold any post without authority of law. The petitioner's