JUDGMENT This petition has been filed purportedly by a journalist who states that he is the editor of a monthly Hindi journal published from Lucknow. The subject matter of the petition is the organisation of work at the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (1). According to the petitioner a mandamus should be issued by this Court for withdrawing all office orders whereby non-clinical and non-teaching work has been assigned to clinician-faculty members of the institute. A mandamus is also sought for filling up all administrative and non-administrative posts which are vacant, whether advertised or not with utmost expedition. Finally, a direction is sought to the effect that faculty members should be deployed in administrative work only under exceptional circumstances. (1) SGPGI 2. The basis of the petition lies in the provisions of the Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1983 (2), of which, Section 33 mandates that the directions which are issued by the State Government for the efficient administration of the affairs of the institute under the Act shall be carried out by the institute. On 29 August 2005, a Government Order was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Director of the institute stating that the involvement of faculty in administrative work should be eschewed since it detracts from their availability for the discharge of their duties as doctors. Based on this Government Order, an earlier writ petition Rohit Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 7078 of 2007) was filed in this Court. During the course of the hearing, a statement was made on behalf of the Director of SGPGI that the Government Order/Circular dated 29 August 2005 would be implemented in letter and spirit, as modified from time to time. The petition was accordingly disposed of. Similar observations were contained in a judgment of this Court dated 14 May 2009, while dismissing a writ petition Misc. Bench No. 2266 of 2009, to the effect that the State Government and the Director of the institute must keep in mind that policies which are made and measures which are taken for administrative arrangements do not over shadow the primary duties of doctors which are to attend patients. The petitioner has also adverted to an audit report (Annexure 15). Bench No. 2266 of 2009, to the effect that the State Government and the Director of the institute must keep in mind that policies which are made and measures which are taken for administrative arrangements do not over shadow the primary duties of doctors which are to attend patients. The petitioner has also adverted to an audit report (Annexure 15). The extract of the report, which is annexed to the writ petition, suggests that doctors were found to be working in non-medical departments despite the shortage of medical professionals and hence it was recommended that proper positioning of medical, paramedical and teaching staff is required for improving the quality of patient care and academic activities. (2) Act 3. During the course of the hearing, the credentials of the petitioner to institute the writ petition have been questioned. The submission is that in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the Court has been apprised of the fact that the petitioner is a journalist and is an editor of a monthly Hindi journal. However, the affidavit in support of the petition indicates that the petitioner (who resides at C-16, Officers Colony, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow) is a trained nurse and an employee of SGPGI. Moreover, it has been submitted that by a letter dated 11 March 2016, addressed by the petitioner to the Vigilance Officer of SGPGI, the institute was informed that the earlier address (Officers Colony) was no longer valid and that correspondence should be addressed at the new address indicated in the letter. This was pressed to indicate that the petition is not a genuine PIL but has evidently been filed at the behest of an interested third party. On this preliminary objection, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the reference in the affidavit to the petitioner being a trained nurse and an employee of the SGPGI, is an inadvertent error. We assume that the reference to the petitioner being a trained nurse and an employee of SGPGI is erroneous for, we have nothing to disbelieve the averment in paragraph 5 that the petitioner is a journalist by profession. 4. We assume that the reference to the petitioner being a trained nurse and an employee of SGPGI is erroneous for, we have nothing to disbelieve the averment in paragraph 5 that the petitioner is a journalist by profession. 4. Be that as it may, there is at least some element of doubt as to whether the affidavit in support of the petition was prepared for instituting the petition at the behest of an employee of SGPGI, which has been subsequently changed to obviate a contention that the petition has been filed at the behest of an interested person. 5. Having said this, we do not propose to rest the petition merely on the preliminary objection. What the petition essentially seeks, is for this Court to dictate the manner in which the affairs of SGPGI should be conducted. We are affirmatively of the view that the function of the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 should not extend to such matters of policy. Of course, the jurisdiction of the Court would extend to ensuring compliance with law and if there is a breach of law, the Court would exercise its power of judicial review. However, the Court must take a robust view and understanding of the realities of the situation. SGPGI is one of the premier medical institutes in the country which attracts medical talent of doctors and faculties from across the country. It commands the faith of thousands of patients who are attended to at the institution. The micromanagement of these institutions is best left to those who are capable of handling the affairs of the institution and understanding the practical problems which arise from day to day. These problems cannot be dealt with in a doctrinaire manner by setting down ironclad rules which will dilute the discretion of the Director and his administrative team to best organise the affairs of the institute in a manner that would subserve the public interest. 6. The Government Order/Circular dated 29 August 2005 has already been the subject matter of deliberation before this Court. In fact, the order of the Division Bench dated 21 September 2007 recorded the statement of the Director that it would be implemented in letter and spirit, as modified from time to time. 6. The Government Order/Circular dated 29 August 2005 has already been the subject matter of deliberation before this Court. In fact, the order of the Division Bench dated 21 September 2007 recorded the statement of the Director that it would be implemented in letter and spirit, as modified from time to time. On 5 November 2007, the Principal Secretary, evidently took notice of the fact that the association of the faculty in certain committees, which look after the affairs of the institution, may be necessary. Consequently, the Government Order permitted the association of the members of the faculty in the following committees: “1. Hospital Revolving Fund (HRF) 2. Investigation Revolving Fund (IRF) 3. Hospital Maintenance and Services. 4. Grievance Committee and High Power Committee. 5. Purchase Committee and Pre-purchase Committee.” 7. The reason for this is not far to seek. There may be certain committees associated with the administration of the institution which have an intrinsic bearing upon the manner in which work is carried out and the efficacy of the institution as a medical hospital and research centre. In that sense, the administration cannot be divorced totally from the medical and research work which is carried on in the institution. These are matters which must be left to the administrative authorities to best decide in accordance with the exigencies of the situation. The State Government which has a controlling power under Section 33 of the Act and oversees the affairs of the institute in the ultimate sense is, it is needless to add, in a position to appreciate whether any modification of its directions is necessary. 8. For these reasons, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the Court to entertain the public interest litigation. The institute has reiterated before this Court that it complies with the directions which have been issued by the State Government and, as a matter of policy, ensures that doctors are left to discharge their core competencies. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Court to entertain the writ petition any further. The relief for filling up of the administrative posts is a matter on which it is appropriate that the Director of the institution takes due and necessary steps as may be required in accordance with law. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.