BHOLANATH MUKHERJEE & Ors. v. R.K. MISSION V. CENTENARY COLLEGE & Ors.

1.3 The submission that the appeal would not be rendered infructuous by the mere retirement of the appellants; that all the appellants have been engaged in the field of education throughout their lives and are deeply interested in ensuring that tt:ie standards of education are maintained and that the appointment for the post of Principal should be made in accordance with the statutory provisions, therefore, the appellants would have the locus standi to continue the proceedings, cannot be accepted. The entire pleadings in the writ petition are founded on the personal grievance of the writ petitioners/ appellants. The writ petitioners have not come before this Court as educationists. Merely because they are senior G most teachers in the same institution, would not necessarily give rise to the presumption, that they had filed the writ petition in public interest A pure and simple service dispute is sought to be camouflaged as a p·ublic interest litigation. Therefore, the said submission cannot H F 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A be accepted as it is tantamount to treating the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The entire grievance of the writ petitioners/appellants was personal. They were all aggrieved and humiliated for being compelled to serve under a Principal junior to them in service. Therefore, it B could not be treated as a public interest litigation. [Paras 21, 22 and 23) [443-C-G; 445-G-H; 446-A-B] Gurpa/ Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 136; Seshadri vs. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy and Ors. 2011 (4) C SCALE 41; Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 sec 363 - referred to.

1.4 The submission that the writ petition can be treated as a writ in the nature of a quo warranto cannot be accepted. It appears that the appellants had not D claimed a writ of quo warranto either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court. Even in this Court, it appears that the said submission was made as a weapon of last resort. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 3 has E acquired the experience of sixteen years. The requirement under Rules was of fifteen years experience, it would, therefore, not be appropriate to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto would lie in the instant case or not. It would be an exercise in futility. The issue has become purely academic [Para 24) (446-G-H; 447-A-B] F