A writ petition purely in respect of a service matter is not maintainable in the form of a public interest litigation, except where a writ of quo warranto is sought against the holder of a public office from usurping the office contrary to the statutory Rules and Regulations.

The petition which has been filed in the form of a public interest litigation seeks in the first relief a direction to the State to constitute the office of the District Programme Officer at Allahabad and 22 Block Offices for the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in accordance with the staffing pattern determined by the Union Government. However, the real purpose of the writ petition is evident from the averments and the reliefs which have been sought thereafter. Prayer (II) is for a quo warranto against the holding of the post of District Programme Officer by the seventh respondent; Prayer (III) is for a mandamus to transfer the seventh respondent from Allahabad; Prayer (IV) is an enquiry in respect of the termination of the Aganwadi workers since 2007; Prayer (V) is to follow the Rules and Regulations with respect to budget, tender and purchasing; Prayer (VI) is for summoning the entire record of purchases done since 2007. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the Economic Offences Wing to hold an enquiry in regard to financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the seventh respondent.

2. A writ petition purely in respect of a service matter is not maintainable in the form of a public interest litigation. The only exception is where a writ of quo warranto is sought against the holder of a public office from usurping the office contrary to the statutory Rules and Regulations. In the present case, the writ petition is silent on how the appointment of the seventh respondent was contrary to the statutory Rules. The only submission urged, at the hearing, is that the seventh respondent is holding the post for nearly nine years in violation of the policy of the State Government that an officer should not be permitted to work at one station for more than six years in his entire career. This is a matter which has to be addressed by the State Government. Whether there are any exigencies of service, would have to be considered by the competent administrative authority.

3. Following the well settled legal position, we do not deem it appropriate and proper to entertain the writ petition insofar as it pertains purely to an area of the conditions of service of the seventh respondent. In fact, the instructions which have been placed by the learned Standing Counsel indicate that the seventh respondent had initiated action against the Aganwadi workers who were found to be remiss in the performance of their duties and hence the PIL is an attempt to remove the seventh respondent from discharging his duties. The seventh respondent has also stated that he was directed to continue to function at the present station in pursuance of the directions of the Chief Development Officer, Allahabad and the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Whether or not the seventh respondent should be transferred from the place of posting, is a matter which the competent administrative authority may well have to determine. Hence, no directions can be issued in that regard. However, we clarify that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not amount to any direction by the Court in regard to the continuance of the seventh respondent and the competent administrative authority would be at liberty to deal with the matter in accordance with the service Rules and Regulations.

4. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.