1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3512/2007 [Vimukta/Bhatkaya Jati Vikas Manch, Wardha .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.R. Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T.R. Kankale, AGP for respondent no.1, Mr. Jayant Mokadam, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.3. ........... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : MARCH 17, 2008. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent no.1, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Respondent no.3 hereinafter was serving as a Teacher. He was promoted as Center Incharge in 1997. His claim to be belonging to Rajput (Bhamta) was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By order dated 21.7.2005 the caste claim of respondent no.3 was invalidated. Thereupon, 2 respondent no.3 preferred Writ Petition No.4083/2005. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.12.2005. However, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court granted protection to the services of respondent no.3 in the following words : “The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has been in service for almost 17 years and that the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that hereinafter he will not claim any benefit as belonging to Rajput Bhamta. On the petitioner's furnishing such an undertaking and having regard to the facts of this case, we direct that the petitioner's services shall be protected and shall not be terminated on this count alone. This protection shall not be construed as protection for the purposes of promotion etc., hereinafter. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 3. It seems that thereafter respondent no.2 herein (Zilla Parishad, Wardha) sought clarification of the said order as it wanted to demote respondent no.3. The said application for clarification was dismissed by a Division Bench of this 3 Court by order dated 3.4.2007 in the following words : “We find the language of the order is very clear and there is no ambiguity requiring any clarification. Application is thus rejected. No cost.” 4. On 18.7.2007 the petitioner filed present Writ Petition No.3512/2007 seeking the main relief as under : “Direct the respondents to revert respondent no.3 from the promotional post of Kendra Pramukh/Center Incharge to his original post and further by the same order be further pleased to direct the same respondent to promote the eligible and qualified candidate on the said promotional post.” 5. Two objections were raised to the tenability of the present writ petition by the learned counsel for respondent no.3. The first is that, the petitioner Vimukta/Bhatkaya Jati Vikas Manch, Wardha cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and it has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Secondly, by filing the present writ petition the petitioner virtually wants review of the earlier order dated 4 14.12.2005 and 3.4.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4083/2005 by a Division Bench of this Court. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 placed reliance on Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others .vrs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 273, wherein it is observed that in service matters PILs should not be entertained. This was reiterated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey .vrs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 349 and Dr. B. Singh .vrs. Union of India and others (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 363, the following words : “A time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as 5 noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) .v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision.” 6. It may be noted that the present writ petition relates purely to service matter, in which the petitioner has no locus standi. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE JUDGE GULANDE