JUDGMENT The reliefs which the petitioner seeks invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, are in the following terms: "1) To interpretate the nature, Scope and relevancy of Rule 8, sub Rule 4 of the "U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) (Procedure) Rules 1992", Whether that is contradictory In nature to the statuary provisions of "U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act. 1976" or complementary in nature to U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act 1976. 2) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside and declare the Rule 8, sub Rule 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) (Procedure) Rules 1992 ultra virus if that is contradictory to statuary provisions of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act 1976. 3) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct to opposite party no.3 to follow the Rule 8, sub Rule 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) (Procedure) Rules 1992 if that is complementary to statuary provisions of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act 1976." 2. Essentially, the petitioner seeks (i) an interpretation of Rule 8(4); and (ii) setting aside of Rule 8(4). These reliefs cannot be granted in a public interest litigation. Ultimately, it is only at the behest of a person aggrieved by the operation of the Rule, that a challenge to constitutional validity can be considered. Moreover, there would be no occasion for this Court to interpret the Rule in the abstract, dehors the facts of a particular case. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition, but leave it open to an aggrieved individual to adopt the appropriate procedure. 3. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.