By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 22.12.2007 issued by U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (Annexure-5 to the public interest petition);

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolutions dated 30.4.2005, 27.8.2005 and 28.8.2005 passed in Full Court Meeting of this Hon’ble Court (Annexures 13, 14 and 15 of this public interest petition);

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide reservation quota for physically handicapped persons in all services including judicial services.

2. In fact the challenge in this petition is to the advertisement dated 22.12.2007 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission to appoint Assistant Prosecution Officers and petitioners are seeking direction that the impugned advertisement be quashed and a fresh advertisement be issued providing reservation in favour of the handicapped persons. The question does arise as under what circumstances, the petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the aforesaid advertisement or by what means they are interested in the present recruitment of Assistant Prosecution Officers.

So far as the locus of the petitioners is concerned, it has been stated as under:

“That this is the first public interest petition on behalf of the petitioner which is a registered society which works for the welfare and benefit of persons who have no means to approach this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievance and for the relief sought for in this public interest petition and no other public interest petition or appeal for the relief sought for in this public interest petition is pending before any Court of law."

3. No other detail has been furnished except the aforesaid. It is not the case of the petitioners that either the Society or the petitioner No. 2, in person, has done anything till today to advance the cause of handicapped persons or they are running any institution to impart any kind of education to such handicapped persons. Merely a bald statement has been made that the petitioners work for the welfare of the petitioners who cannot seek the redressal of their grievances before the Court. We fail to understand as under what circumstances, such a noble cause has been taken by them unless they have indulged in any service to such handicapped persons. We are very much doubtful regarding the bona fides of the petitioners and the petition is merely a ‘benami’ litigation and amounts to abuse of process of the Court. More so, PIL is not maintainable in service matters

3-A. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to the Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. (Vide Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietor Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1962 SC 1044; Mani Subrat Jain and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276; State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty and others, AIR 1987 SC 331; State of Kerala and others v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and others, AIR 1989 SC 49; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor and others, AIR 1998 SC 3104; Utkal University v. Dr. Nrusingh