Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is an existing Professor in the Department of Chemistry of Anna University. He has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Lecturer in Chemistry. The said appointment of the 5th respondent took place as early as 10.9.1998. His appointment was approved by the Syndicate vide its Resolution No.118.3.5 of the 118th Meeting of the Central Government held on 18.2.1988. 2. Incidentally the petitioner belonged to the same Department as that of the 5th respondent. While the 5th respondent is holding the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner holds the post of Professor. In his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, he had stated that he works in the very same Department right from 1974 and he is aware of the 5th respondents appointment when it was made even in the year 1988. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner came to know the alleged defect/lack of qualification of the 5th respondent in holding the post of Assistant Professor. 3. According to the petitioner, for the post of Lecturer in Department of Chemistry, the requirement is to have a Ph.D. Degree in the area of specialisation in the concerned post with Post Doctoral experience and the candidate should have possessed National Educational Test (NET) or Accredited State Level NET. The petitioner also forms part of Consultative Committee for screening the candidates. Therefore, from day one when the process for the appointment took place, the petitioner is aware of the alleged defect or lack of qualification on the part of the fifth respondent. However, for the reasons best known, he is unable to raise an issue at any forum except within the Department. He claims on his complaint, some action is being taken. But, since the action is not to the extent of removing the 5th respondent, he has chosen to file the present Writ Petition at the tail end of the service of one of his colleague in the Department. Since the petition is not filed in any public interest and it is the nature of Quo Warranto Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain such a Writ Petition. 4. Since the petition is not filed in any public interest and it is the nature of Quo Warranto Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain such a Writ Petition. 4. On the first ground that even in a case of quo warranto, the Court has discretionary jurisdiction and one such area where the discretion can be refused to be exercised is the ground of delay. If a person, who is in the knowledge of such affairs do not speak out or move the court of law within a reasonable time, the Court can deny the relief in a petition which is in the nature of quo warranto. 5. Further, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Neetu v. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614 observed as follows: "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. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” 6. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.