ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred for following prayers: “(1) That the petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for the issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents concerned; (i) For implementing the recommendation of the Enquiry report contained in memo no.1542 dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure6 to this writ application) as inspite of submission of enquiry report by the Three Members Committee, respondent no.2 has once again constituted a new committee for conducting the enquiry on the same issue, it is noting but an eye wash on the real issue raised by the petitioner and others.” And/or For any other order/orders for which petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-University had constituted one Committee because of certain irregularities and the said Committee has given its report which is at Annexure7 to the memo of this petition. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court to page no.33/internal page no.10 of the aforesaid report which contains recommendations and it is submitted that these recommendations may be implemented. For the ready reference, the said recommendations read as under: “Recommendation: (i) Regarding appointment of Principal and 1/3rd Teachers as recommendation of Diocese, The Church of Chotanagpur.' (a) Till, 2012, appointments have been made on the basis of agreement reached between Diocese and the University at the time of conversion of the constituent unit in 1965. Though the clauses of appointment have been incorporated in Ranchi University Code in December, 1970, the same have not yet been included in the Jharkhand University Act, 2000. To honour the agreement reached about 49 years ago, steps may be taken to incorporate the clauses (regarding appointment of Principal & Teachers. St. Columba's College) in the Jharkhand State University Act or any suitable decision may be taken by the University under the provisions of section 4 subsection 14 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 in this regard. (b) Regarding appointment of teachers done in July, 2013, Principal has allowed 9 teachers to engage classes in the college only on the recommendation of Diocese, but without the approval of the concerned University. This is the violation of clause 4 of the agreement done. Therefore, the Principal may be served a show cause notice regarding this.” 4. (b) Regarding appointment of teachers done in July, 2013, Principal has allowed 9 teachers to engage classes in the college only on the recommendation of Diocese, but without the approval of the concerned University. This is the violation of clause 4 of the agreement done. Therefore, the Principal may be served a show cause notice regarding this.” 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon recommendation no. i(a) and i(b) and therefore, only that much part of the recommendations may be implemented. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that again a Committee has constituted for the very same purpose (Annexure8 to this writ petition). 6. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation at all. It appears that all cannons of allegations have been levelled against the appointments of few Lecturers. They have not been joined as party respondents nor even their names have been incorporated. 7. It further appears from the facts of the case that this petitioner is in search of amendment in the law viz. Jharkhand University Act, 2000. No writ of mandamus can be issued upon the State to amend the law. 8. It further appears from the facts of the case that there are several allegations levelled against the private persons. Whenever such type of petitions are being filed, putting an allegation against the Principal, the Lecturers, the excess of authority utilized by the Principal and the legalities of the appointment of few Lecturers in such situations we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. 9. Moreover, if the University is doing any illegality or if a particular Principal of a College is doing illegality the actions can always be initiated against them by taking recourse under the writ jurisdiction and not under the Public Interest Litigation so that such Principals or Lecturers or the University can file their reply. It appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation, but, it is a Publicity Interest Litigation. 10. It appears that the documents have been procured by this petitioner unauthorizedly either by theft or by some illegal means especially Annexure7. It appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation, but, it is a Publicity Interest Litigation. 10. It appears that the documents have been procured by this petitioner unauthorizedly either by theft or by some illegal means especially Annexure7. No legal source of procuring Annexure7 has been mentioned in the petition nor, upon the query raised by this Court, the counsel for the petitioner could explain. Similar is position for another document which is at Annexure8. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation and hence, this writ petition is hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/(Rs. Twenty five thousand only) which will be deposited by this petitioner in Advocate's Association Welfare and Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 12. A copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the President as well as Secretary of the Advocate's Association.