JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. Petitioner claiming himself to be an RTI activist, pro bono, has filed this writ petition. 2. In paragraph No. 2 (3) of the petition, it is declared by the petitioner that the petition is filed on his own and not at the instance of someone else. It is declared that the litigation cost, including the advocate's fee and travel expenses of the lawyers are being borne by the petitioner himself. Those declarations as evident is under the heading 'Antecedents'. Rule 14 (2) under Chapter 13 requires that in a Regular Public Interest Litigation, a writ petition shall disclose “source of petitioner's finances for meeting the expenditure of the PIL”. On being quarried at the outset as to whether besides being RTI/Social activist, whether the petitioner has any other vocation to follow, to earn a livelihood and to meet out the expenses, learned counsel for the petitioner evades the answer, which creates a doubt as to bonafides of the petitioner being a self sponsored public spirited person to fight the cause for the public at large. 3. Be that as it may. The petitioner questions the absorption of respondent No.6 on the post of Registrar, Medicine in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior which is by order dated 24/07/2008. It is urged that the same is contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 and Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Ke Samvardhan Evam Samviliyan Sambandhi Niyam 1998 (referred as “Niyam 1998”). It is urged that in both the Rules, there is no provision for absorption of Assistant Surgeon of Public Health and Family Welfare Department as Registrar in Medical College. 4. It is urged that in both the Rules, there is no provision for absorption of Assistant Surgeon of Public Health and Family Welfare Department as Registrar in Medical College. 4. The order whereby respondent No.6 was absorbed in the Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior which is in the name of Governor, State of Madhya Pradesh speaks thus: ^^e/; Áns'k 'kklu fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ea=ky; vkns'k Hkksiky] fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2008 1- Øekad ,Q 2&36@08@1@ipiu] jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk MkŒ tsŒ,lŒ uke/kkjh lek;d 'kY; fpfdRld] yksd LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx tks orZeku esa lgk;d 'kY; fpfdRld ds in ij xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] Xokfy;j esa Áfrfu;qfDr ijinLFk gS] dk lafofy;u jftLVªkj esfMflu ds in ij xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo?kky; Xokfy;j esa fd;k tkrk gSA 2- MkŒ uke/kkjh dh lafofy;u laca/kh lsok 'krsZ i`Fkd ls tkjh dh tkosxhA e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼,Œ,eŒ iqjksfgr½ voj lfpo e/; Áns'k 'kklu fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx i`"Bkadu Øekad ,Q 1&36@08@1@ipiu] Hkksiky] fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2008A** 5. It is pertinent to note, and the documents on record also reveal that the respondent No.6 is on deputation in said college since 2003. 6. The petitioner has referred to the Rules of 1987 which as per Rule 3 is applicable to every member of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service. Rule 6 whereof makes provision for methods of recruitment which are : (a) By direct recruitment by selection-competitive examination; (b) By promotion of the member of the service; (c) By transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services, as may be specified in this behalf. 7. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 stipulates that : “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of the service so require the Government may with prior concurrence of the Department personal Administration Reform & Training adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in said sub-rule, for such post as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.” 8. These Rules besides providing recruitment by transfer, also empower the Government (which as per Rule 2 (a) is the “Appointing Authority”) if the exigency of the service so require to adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in sub-rule (1) by order issued in that behalf. 9. These Rules besides providing recruitment by transfer, also empower the Government (which as per Rule 2 (a) is the “Appointing Authority”) if the exigency of the service so require to adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in sub-rule (1) by order issued in that behalf. 9. Even Rule 20 (5) of Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya ke Samvardhan Evam Samvihan Sambandh Niyam (Chikitsa, Dant, Nursing Mahavidalya Tatha Mansik Arogya Shala ke Liye) 1998, which the petitioner has relied provides for appointment on deputation. ^^¼5½ Á'kklfud vf/kdkjh Á'kklfud vf/kdkjh iw.kZ :i ls 'kklu ds v/khu gksaxs rFkk ;s ,d laLFkk ls nwljh laLFkk esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tk ldsxsaA fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa ofj"B Á'kkldh; vf/kdkjh inLFk fd;s tk;saxsA fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;hu fpfdRlky; esa Á'kkldh; vf/kdkjh iwoZor jgsxsA HkrhZ rFkk inksUufr fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ds fu;eksa ds vUrxZr gksxhA Á'kkldh; vf/kdkjh dks Áfrfu;qfDr ij Hkh fy;k tk ldrk gSA** 10. The recruitment by absorption is not alien to service jurisprudence. In Panchraj Tiwari Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others, (2014) 5 SCC 101 , it is held : “14. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service, but negation of even the chance of promotion certainly amounts to variation in the conditions of service attracting infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No employee has a right to particular position in the seniority list but all employees have a right to seniority since the same forms the basis of promotion.” 11. The petitioner also questions the order dated 10.05.2016; whereby, respondent No.6 has been promoted as Assistant Professor in Gajraraja Medical College under Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002. It is urged that the promotion ought not to have been made by relaxing all the norms. Evidently, it is not the contention that the respondent No.6 does not possess necessary educational qualification for appointment as Registrar and as Assistant Professor. 12. True it may be, as is borne out from note-sheets of the department obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed along with the petition that internally there has been objection for respondent No.6's promotion as one time measure because of the alleged undertaking given by him at the time of absorption on the post of Registrar. The Council of Ministers in its resolution dated 10.03.2016 took decision to relax the Rules as one time measure and propose the promotion. There being the power to relax under the Rules, whether it is rightly exercised, in our considered opinion, cannot be subjected to challenge in public interest litigation when in fact the incumbent is otherwise eligible to hold the post. It is for the aggrieved persons who are in service and if they have suffered can question such relaxation. No such person has come forward to challenge the absorption and relaxation which leaves an impression that the present petition is a sponsored petition. Trite it is that the public interest litigation in respect of service matter is not tenable. 13. In Neetu Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 758 , it is held : “10. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 12. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 12. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object.” 14. In Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 , it is held : “5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 15. In Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 , it is observed : “11. About maintainability of the public interest litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are a series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. About maintainability of the public interest litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are a series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in subsection (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the Vigilance Department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence.” 16. A division Bench of this Court in Democratic Lawyers Forum Vs. Union of India & Others, 2018 (2) MPLJ 525 , observed : “18. .......... The consistent line of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme is that in service matters public interest litigation would not maintainable except in case of writ of quo warranto. Therefore, public interest litigation in service matters will include selection, appointment, promotion, seniority and also disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, all facets of service matters except writ of quo warranto are not permissible under the guise of public interest litigation. Thus, we find that the present public interest litigation is in a service matter, and thus not maintainable.” 17. That, besides quashment of the order dated 24.07.2008 and 10.05.2016, the petitioner also seeks the writ of quo warranto, which as held in Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 501 will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provision. It is held by their Lordships : “19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana 2002 6 SCC 269 held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. It is held by their Lordships : “19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana 2002 6 SCC 269 held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn., (2006) 11 SCC 731 , this Court has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The said position has been reiterated by this Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 , wherein this Court has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy itself that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. 31. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the office is authorised to hold the same as per law. Delay and laches do not constitute any impediment to deal with the lis on merits and it has been so stated in Kashinath G. Jalmi v. Speaker (1993) 2 SCC 703 . 32. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCC 712 it has been laid down by this Court that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when there is violation of statutory provisions/rules. The said principle has been reiterated in Retd. Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India (2006) 11 SCC 731 (1). 33. In Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 1 a three-Judge Bench, after referring to the decision in R.K Jain v. Union Of India. (1993) 4 SCC 119 , has opined thus: (Centre for PIL case, SCC p. 29, para 64) “64. Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India (2006) 11 SCC 731 (1). 33. In Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 1 a three-Judge Bench, after referring to the decision in R.K Jain v. Union Of India. (1993) 4 SCC 119 , has opined thus: (Centre for PIL case, SCC p. 29, para 64) “64. Even in R.K Jain case, this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction.” (emphasis in original) It is also worth noting that in the said case a view has been expressed that the judicial determination can be confined to the integrity of the decision-making process in terms of the statutory provisions. 18. Thus a writ of quo-warranto will be when there is violation of statutory provision and the incumbent is not eligible to hold the post. 19. In the present case as evident from the decision by the Council of Ministers on 10.03.2016 brought on record at page 257 of the compilation wherein after considering that the respondent No. 6 possess the requisite eligibility the relaxation is granted. The order is reproduced for ready reference : ^^fo"k;% ,Q9&226@2012@1&55 iwoZ i`"B ls %& eaf=&ifj"kn vkns'k vk;Ve Øekad 17 fnukad 10 ekpZ] 2016 fo"k;%& Áns'k ds fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx@lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk@vf/k"Bkrk] fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk fu;qDr@inksUur Án'kZd] V;wVj ,oa jftLVªkj dh lgk;d Ák/;kid ds in ij inksUufr djus gsrq HkrhZ fu;eksa] inksUufr fu;eksa] vk;q lhek ,oa vU; lqlaxr fu;eksa dk ,d ckj ds fy, f'kfFkyhdj.kA fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx@lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk@vf/k"Bkrk] fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk fu;qDr vFkok inksUur ,sls Án'kZd] V;wVj ,oa jftLVªkj tks ,eŒlhŒvkbZŒ }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr laLFkk ls ihŒthŒ fMxzh/kkjh gS rFkk ,eŒlhŒvkbZŒ ds ekun.Mkuqlkj lgk;d Ák/;kid dh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk j[krs gSa dks lgk;d Ák/;kid ds fjDr in ij inksUur fd, tkus gsrq ,d ckj ds fy, HkrhZ fu;eksa] vU; lqlaxr fu;eksa ,oa vk;q&lhek esa NwV Ánku dh tkosA ¼vUVksuh fMlk½ eq[; lfpoA** 20. As the Rules of 1987 vide Rule 6 (4) read with Rule 21 confers the power to relax, no illegality is shown as would attract a writ of quo warranto. 21. In view of above analysis, as no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no costs.