Public interest litigation and service-rule validity: Court found no bona fide PIL basis and upheld the provident fund amendment.

Public interest litigation requires the petitioner to show bona fide credentials, trustworthy material, and a real public cause before Article 226 jurisdiction is invoked. The Court found those conditions absent because the petitioner was not a retired government servant and had not established a genuine public interest, so the PIL was not maintainable. The Court also examined the 28.06.2012 amendment allowing retired employees to continue provident fund accounts under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and found no legal infirmity in the State's rule-making power or inconsistency with the governing service framework. As a result, no writ relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition filed as a public interest litigation disclosed bona fide credentials and a genuine public interest so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the amendment dated 28.06.2012 introducing the option of continued provident fund account for retired employees was invalid or contrary to the governing service rules.

Issue (i): Whether the petition filed as a public interest litigation disclosed bona fide credentials and a genuine public interest so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petition was examined on the touchstone applicable to public interest litigation, namely the petitioner's credentials, the trustworthiness of the material placed before the Court, and whether the grievance raised a real public cause. The Court found that the petitioner was not a retired government servant and had not established sufficient bona fides or a real and substantial public interest in the subject matter. The grievance was treated as falling outside the legitimate scope of public interest litigation.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable as a public interest litigation and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment dated 28.06.2012 introducing the option of continued provident fund account for retired employees was invalid or contrary to the governing service rules.

Analysis: The amendment was considered in the context of the service framework under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The Court found no legal infirmity in the State's exercise of rule-making power and held that the impugned scheme was not shown to be contrary to the rules or otherwise invalid.

Conclusion: The amendment dated 28.06.2012 was not invalid and was not contrary to the governing rules.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on maintainability as well as on merits, and no writ relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A public interest litigation is maintainable only when the petitioner demonstrates bona fide credentials and a genuine public cause; absent such foundation, and where the impugned executive action is not shown to be contrary to the governing rules, judicial interference is unwarranted.

---