IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22837 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH BABU R., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.N.B.RAJAGOPAL, MAVUVILA VEEDU, MUTTADA P.O. TRIVANDRUM-25. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3. AGENCY FOR NON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY (ANERT), VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER. 4. P.V.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, MEMBER STATE PLANNING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 5. RESSY GEORGE, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, PUBLICITY ASSISTANT, ANERT. 6. CHANDRACHOODAN NAIR, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF DIRECTOR, ANERT, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R3 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22837 of 2010 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayers sought in the writ petition are to direct the 1st respondent to frame special rules, and to declare that appointments made by the 6th respondent pursuant to Ext.P2 notification are void, and to declare that the appointment of the 5th respondent is against law and to quash it, and to direct the 1st respondent to takeover the powers of the 4th respondent in the finalisation and implementation of restructuring of the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is not an employee of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition does not contain any prayer for the individual benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, this is not anything other than a Public Interest Litigation. It is the settled legal position that in service matters, there is no Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg