Public interest litigation cannot be used to attack individual service appointments or private disputes; appointment challenge failed.

A writ petition styled as public interest litigation was held not maintainable where it targeted an individual service appointment and appeared driven by personal rivalry or oblique motive rather than genuine public injury. The Court reiterated that PIL requires bona fide credentials, a prima facie case of public harm, and a real public concern, and that service matters are generally outside PIL jurisdiction. The High Court therefore erred in entertaining the challenge on merits, invalidating the appointment, and directing a fresh selection process. The impugned judgment was set aside and the appellant's appointment was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition styled as public interest litigation was maintainable to challenge an individual service appointment, and whether the High Court was justified in entertaining and deciding such a challenge on merits.

Analysis: Public interest litigation requires bona fide credentials, a prima facie public injury, and a grievance of real public concern. The Court reiterated that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to ventilate private, political, or personal disputes, and that service matters are not an appropriate field for PIL intervention. Where the petition is aimed at a particular individual and the surrounding circumstances indicate personal rivalry or oblique motive, the Court must prevent abuse of its process and refuse to entertain the petition. On that basis, the challenge to the appellant's appointment ought not to have been entertained as a PIL, and the High Court erred in proceeding to invalidate the appointment and direct a fresh selection process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a public interest litigation and the High Court's interference was unsustainable; the challenge to the appellant's appointment failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant's appointment was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition in the guise of public interest litigation cannot be entertained in service matters or where the challenge is driven by private or oblique motives rather than a genuine public injury.

---