Judgment 1. The Court records at the outset that this matter was not submitted in modesty or humility. The petition was brought in as a Public Interest Litigation. Let the meaning of Public Interest Litigation not be misunderstood which is basically an affirmative action on which the Court issues notice of motion. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 3, both of them, were in Government service in the same department. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 should have retired in 1996 and the fact that he has been permitted to continue in service up to 2001 is an irregularity and an illegality. 3. The petition has been answered by a counter affidavit of the State and respondent no. 3. Right at the beginning the Court had made it quite clear to the petitioner that if he desires to file a rejoinder he may do so but the Court was engaged to listening to an argument in belligerence on how respondent no. 3 could by logic have been born in the year 1943 and according to the petitioner his date of birth perhaps is 1938. On record we have a verification of the State confirming that High School certificate, otherwise appended by respondent no. 3, showing his date of birth as 1943 has been verified by the Board of High School and Intermediate, Allahabad, 1943. 4. A Public Interest Litigation cannot become an arena for settlement of personal scores. If High Courts attention is to be drawn on a Public Interest Litigation, the Court repeats that the submission will have to be made with utmost humility. 5. Dismissed.