JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 15 is taken on record. Application made there for stands disposed of 2. Petitioner has approached this court seeking the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo-warranto, that the respondent nos. 4 to 14 be directed to remove from the posts of public office, they are holding, as they have been illegally appointed in the department. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 15 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a detailed fair enquiry in regard to the illegal appointments of the respondent nos. 4 to 14 and lodge a FIR in this regard and take action against the culprits.” 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a journalist and environment loving person. He came to know about the illegal appointments of respondent nos. 4 to 14. Several persons made complaints to the Uttarakhand Environment Conservation & Pollution Control Board for taking action. There is reference to earlier Writ Petition (PIL) No. 71 of 2011, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent no. 3 issued an advertisement in the year 2003, inviting applications for deputation/direct recruitment for the posts of Chief Environment Officer, Environment Officer, Assistant Environment Officer, Assistant Scientific Officer and Account Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that neither the qualification nor the mode of appointment was mentioned in the advertisement. Various grounds are taken to contend that the appointments are wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide including that there is no selection committee; and the maximum age of 48 years has been fixed for direct recruitment but there is no provision for fixation of 48 years; there is no reservation policy applied in giving appointments, though service regulation provides for reservation of S.C., S.T., O.B.C. and women. There are other allegations also. 4. We have heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel on behalf of the C.B.I. and Mr. Shiv Pande, learned counsel on behalf of the Pollution Control Board. 5. In fact, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board would contend that the petitioner is somebody, who is set up by someone else. 6. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel on behalf of the C.B.I. and Mr. Shiv Pande, learned counsel on behalf of the Pollution Control Board. 5. In fact, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board would contend that the petitioner is somebody, who is set up by someone else. 6. It is settled law that Public Interest Litigation, as such, is not maintainable in service matters. We have noticed the prayers. The exception to the principle is that in Public Interest case, service matters cannot be entertained except when a person seeks a writ of quo-warranto. Apart from that, in appropriate cases, the Court may entertain the plea for a writ of declaration. 7. Though, this petition is filed as Writ Petition (S/B), what we would notice is that the petitioner has absolutely no locus in the sense that the petitioner is not a candidate/person, who is aspirant for any of these posts. Though, this petition is not styled as a Public Interest Litigation as such, apparently as the petitioner is aware that a Public Interest Litigation will not lie, by styling the petition as Writ Petition (S/B) what the petitioner is seeking is the same as a Public Interest Litigant would seek. The petitioner apparently is espousing public interest in this matter. If that is so, the relief sought seeking to impugn the appointment of the party respondents, in our view, is clearly not maintainable. If that is so, we also do not intend to entertain the petition regarding direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into the matter. 8. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.