JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.

2. The petitioner, Vision India Welfare Trust, a registered charitable trust as it claims, has filed this petition through its Treasurer, Mohd. Ali Ansari, seeking to question the selection of respondent no.6 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Algarh Muslim University, Aligarh (for short, 'the University').

3. The petitioner seeks to move this petition in public interest and asks this Court to quash the recommendations of the General Selection Committee held on 25.07.2015 to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology of the University. A mandamus has also been sought to declare the appointment of respondent no.6 void ab initio and direct recovery of salary paid to him on account of his appointment on the post of Associate Professor. There is no writ of quo warranto that the petitioner seeks.

4. Since the petition is one that claims to be moved in public interest, in our opinion, the petition must pass muster of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII reads :

"(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."

5. Paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6, which are pleadings made to comply with Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 read :

"3. That at the very outset it is stated that the petitioner has no selfish motive behind filing of this petition and he is filing this petition by way of PIL only in common interest of public at large.

4. That the petitioner will not get any profit/ loss by filing the present petition.

5. That the petitioner is a social trust namely Vision India Welfare Trust and is not politically motivated by any political party nor have been financed by any person/ political party to file this PIL. A photocopy of the trust deed dated 14.11.2008 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 1 to this PIL.

6. That the facts giving arise to the present public interest litigation are startling as without any fear and in collusion with official respondent of the government, the private respondent has been recruited as Associate professor, Department of Psychology of Aligarh Muslim University."

6. Now, it must be observed at the outset that Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter XXII is no ceremony to be observed by a petitioner, who moves this Court in public interest. A petitioner moving this Court in public interest must substantially comply with the requirements of the Rule. What we find ex facie from the averments in Paragraphs Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition is that the petitioner has hardly done that. The contents of Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the writ petition show no more than a paraphrasing of the contents of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1. There is just a reference to the label of contents that a PIL petitioner must satisfy before maintaining his petition. There are no facts pleaded vis-à-vis any of the requirements which the Rule postulates to maintain a petition in public interest. The first of the requirements is the disclosure of the petitioner's credentials. To that end, the petitioner has said nothing more than that, that the petitioner is a charitable trust and is not politically motivated by any political party nor financed by any person or political party to file the present PIL. This, as already said, is no