Judgment :- Petitioner claims that he is a “public spirited person” who is engaged in social and charitable activities for the upliftment of the downtrodden and rural community. He has filed this writ petition praying for instituting an enquiry against respondent No.1 who has recently retired from service as a Lower Primary School Teacher. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had corrected his date of birth and continued in service for two years in excess of what he would have been actually entitled to. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.1 had changed his date of birth from July 1, 1947 to July 1, 1949. This was done by him while he had joined Pulickal Arabic College. In fact, going by his actual date of birth, he ought to have retired from service in the year 2002; but he managed to continue till 2004. Thus he drew salary and other benefits on the basis of this alteration made in his date of birth. Therefore the petitioner prays that respondents 3 and 4 may be directed to recover the excess amount paid to respondent No.1 by way of salary and other benefits and there may be a further direction not to release his pensionary and other retirement benefits till an enquiry is instituted and completed. 2. It is admitted by the petitioner himself that he came to know about the alteration made by respondent No.1 from a newspaper report. Petitioner pleads that he has no axe to grind against respondent No.1. There is no personal animosity or political rivalry, but the petitioner wants to show his commitment to the society and expose such social evils and fight against them. He does not want the offender to go unpunished. He does not want the State exchequer to lose public funds. Petitioner apprehends that respondent No.1 may use his political clout and manage to get away without any punishment. 3. Respondent No.1 has appeared through a counsel and filed a counter affidavit. He has vehemently denied the entire allegations made against him. He avers that the entries in his service book were made by the Head of the Institution at the time when he had joined the service. The entries were verified and countersigned by the Assistant Educational Officer, Kondotty. He has produced the extract of the school admission register in support of his contention. He avers that the entries in his service book were made by the Head of the Institution at the time when he had joined the service. The entries were verified and countersigned by the Assistant Educational Officer, Kondotty. He has produced the extract of the school admission register in support of his contention. Be that as it may, the short question that arises for consideration is whether this Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioner is to be entertained. 4. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 their Lordship of the Supreme Court have held that public interest litigations in service matters should not be entertained. Very recently the Supreme Court had occasion to survey the proliferation of the so called public interest litigations in High Courts and the supreme Court. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005)1 SCC 590 their Lordships observed thus: “When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out…Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigations”.,…If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well.” 5. A perusal of the averments in the Writ Petitioner clearly shows that what has motivated the petitioner is anything but “public spirit, social commitment or his anxiety to cleanse the society”. I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner lacks bona fides. It deserves to be dismissed and not without any deterrence. In my view, this is the least that the courts can do to weed out such busybodies and the “so called moralists”. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed with a costs of Rs.5,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. If the cost is not paid by the petitioner within one month from today, the Secretary, KELSA shall initiate steps to recover the same by taking recourse to revenue proceedings through the District Collector, Malappuram.