A. Misbah, Social Worker vs Union of India (UOI), Administrator, Administrative Officer and Chief Engineer and Administrator

J. Chelameswar, C.J.—This writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:

(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P-1 to P- 6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to fill up the posts of Junior

Engineers as stated in Ext.P-4 from the Islanders, i.e. from Lakshadweep applicants in respect of the posts in the Harbors of Lakshadweep and

also not to effect any appointment from persons other than Lakshadweep Islanders;

(ii) To issue any writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider Exts.P5 and P6 representations and not to make any appointment to

the post notified as per Ext.P-4 till Ext.P-1 Circular is implemented;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th Respondent to implement Ext.P-1 Circular and also Ext.P-2 in respect of Class III and

Class IV employment by appointing locals;

(iv) To cancel Ext.P-7 notification and to direct the Respondents to conduct fresh interview after conducting written test from among islanders,

depending on the number of vacancies in each Island;

(v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case.

The writ petitioner is not a candidate seeking employment in any one of the posts recruitment of which is sought to be disputed in the writ

petition. On the other hand, he makes a categoric statement that ""He is entitled to approach this Honourable Court for redressal of public

grievances, suffered by the Islanders and accordingly he is filing this Writ Petition"".

It is settled law that no public interest litigation is maintainable in the matter of employment under the Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc.

Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., . In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. We may

also state that having moved such a writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not choose to appear in the Court when the matter

was called. Looked at from any angle, we do not see any reason to continue with the writ petition. It is therefore dismissed.