JUDGMENT : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. Sri Prasada Rao Vemireddy, a practicing Advocate, claiming to be a social activist, while highlighting his social activism, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as pro bono litigation, to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 entrusting to fill up the posts on outsourcing basis in Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan (SSA) to manpower supply agencies as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and also prayed for consequential relief to set-aside the said memo. 2. It is alleged that, the petitioner is a practicing advocate and he is also claiming himself as a social activist aged 54 years, came to know that recruitment of outsourcing staff like teachers, section officers and other subordinate staff members in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in the State of Andhra Pradesh is being undertaken through outsourcing and entrusted to manpower supply agencies by the first respondent or its governmental agencies i.e., Project Officer. The manpower supply agencies are collecting huge amount in lakhs depending upon the posts they applied, thereby, the unemployed youth are turning in queue to purchase the posts in their respective capacities. The same was lured by the manpower supply agencies and encash the public and unemployed youth. He also contended that the print and electronic media has exposed the same in episodes, on day-to-day basis in their respective newspapers and channels, where fraud and cheating are played by the manpower supply agencies is highlighted. The petitioner also agitated such malpractices of fraud played by the manpower supply agencies and protested before the office of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. But, no purpose was served. He also submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to stop illegal recruitment in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan. 3. While so, the second respondent issued proceedings vide RC.No.5101/APSSA/A7/2017 dated 27.06.2018 stating that all the Project Officers in the State were informed to hold the process of selection of staff on outsourcing basis of their respective districts immediately, until further instructions in the matter, treating it as ‘top priority’. Despite such direction, the first respondent has issued Memo NO.ESR01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 directing to gear up academic progress of the institutions. It is contended that, the proceedings issued by the first and second respondents are contradicting each other. 4. Despite such direction, the first respondent has issued Memo NO.ESR01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 directing to gear up academic progress of the institutions. It is contended that, the proceedings issued by the first and second respondents are contradicting each other. 4. The petitioner mainly alleged that, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme is an educational scheme befitting the unemployed youth, where 70% project cost is sponsored by the Central Government and the remaining 30% project cost is sponsored by the State. The State Government takes up recruitment whenever the posts fell vacant or there is need of recruitment without charging the private agencies and thereby, monitors the entire scheme. It is alleged that, if such process is undertaken, there is every possibility of avoiding fraud by the private agencies and exploitation of unemployed youth and thereby, the process of selection of itself can be set right, as it would benefit the educational institutions itself in the entire State and prayed the relief stated supra. 5. The second respondent, filed counter denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the petition of public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and it is misconceived, since the dispute is with regard to recruitment through outsourcing agency, which is purely a service dispute and public interest litigation cannot be maintained, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273 and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically contended that, when the petitioner is questioning Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018, he ought to have made a representation or demanded the authorities concerned Le respondents 1 & 2 and in the event of denial to discharge their legal duty, he can approach the respondents, subject to maintainability of writ petition as public interest litigation. But, the petitioner straight away approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, on this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The memo impugned in this writ petition was issued in terms of existing governmental outsourcing policy and unless outsourcing policy is set-aside, the petitioner cannot question the procedure adopted by the respondents. 6. The memo impugned in this writ petition was issued in terms of existing governmental outsourcing policy and unless outsourcing policy is set-aside, the petitioner cannot question the procedure adopted by the respondents. The allegation that the manpower agencies are selling the posts for consideration in lakhs as per the demand is incorrect, for the reason that, no specific complaint is received from any corner of the State or from any of the aspiring candidates. The petition is filed on Imaginary grounds, playing fraud and in the absence of any material to substantiate the same, the petition cannot be maintained. The respondent admitted about issue of memos by respondents 1 & 2. However, contended that intentionally a memo was issued by the second respondent to hold the selection process. But, on verification of those news Items in the news papers, a discrete enquiry was conducted and found no truth in the allegations made in the news items. Thereupon, issued memo impugned in this writ petition directing the Project Officers to complete the process of selection through outsourcing agencies. Hence, contended that the memo impugned in this writ petition cannot be set-aside. 7. The respondent admitted about the initial funding of 85% by the Central Government and 15% funding by the State Government, depending upon the budget allocation. But, share of expenditure varies from year to year. For the academic year 2015-2016, the Central Government share was 60% of the total expenditure and the remaining 40% was borne by the State Government itself. For every financial year, the Government of India released funds to the State Implementing Society in two instalments, i.e. in the months of April and September of the year and the funds thus released will be credited to the bank account of the State Implementing Society and they will be utilized for various interventions like opening of new schools, alternate schooling facilities, construction of school buildings, additional classrooms, toilets, providing drinking water, teachers, regular teacher in service training, academic resource support, free textbooks & uniforms, support for improving learning activities. 8. It is further contended that Sarva Siksha Abhiyan is only a project having no permanent posts and all the posts in the project are temporary and thus filling can only be by way of deputation/contract/outsourcing basis. 8. It is further contended that Sarva Siksha Abhiyan is only a project having no permanent posts and all the posts in the project are temporary and thus filling can only be by way of deputation/contract/outsourcing basis. Thus, by following the orders of the Government, steps are taken to fill the vacant posts on outsourcing basis in 13 districts and accordingly, the authorities have entrusted the recruitment of posts to manpower agencies in the State. Since the project itself is temporary, no permanent employee can be appointed in any cadre i.e. teaching or non-teaching staff and therefore, the alleged fraud in the absence of any details, cannot be a ground to quash the memo. Hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. During hearing, Sri Karrt Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the government alone has to take up the process of recruitment on permanent basis, so that the unemployed youth will be benefitted, as Sarva Sikshya Abiyan is generating employment. If, the recruitment process is under taken by the State Government, the possibilities of corruption and fraud in recruitment process can be avoided to the maximum extent and sought a direction against the Government to undertake recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff directly by the State Government, ignoring the relief actually claimed in the petition. 10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 contended that, entrustment to Project Officers to complete the process of selection through outsourcing agencies is only in view of the orders passed by the State Government. The State probed into the allegations published in the news items arid when the news Item were published complaining about fraud, and found no truth in it, consequently, the memo impugned in this writ petition was issued, though the second respondent issued a memo directing to hold the recruitment process until further orders. Enquiry was conducted only for issuance of memo by the second respondent and when the nest respondent found no truth in the allegations, the impugned memo in this writ petition was issued, so as to gear up the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff by the outsourcing agencies, to cater the needs of the students under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme. Learned Standing Counsel specifically contended that the public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters, since recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff directly falls under service dispute and relied on two judgments of the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra) and P. Seshadriv. Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others, 2011 (4) SCALE 41 : 2011 (5) ALT 27 .2 (DN SC). In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above two judgments, he requested to dismiss the writ petition, while supporting the memo impugned, issued by the first and second respondents. 11. It is also contended that, based on news items, the Court cannot quash the memo, since the news item published in the newspaper is only hearsay evidence, but not admissible and on the strength of such news items, this Court cannot grant relief, and requested to dismiss the petition. 12. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) “Whether public interest litigation call be maintained in service disputes by a practicing advocate aged 54 years, claiming to be a social activist? (2) Whether issue of Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 IS in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or in violation of fundamental duties enshrined under Article 43 of the Constitution of India. If so, whether Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 is liable to be set-aside, declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 as illegal and arbitrary?” POINT NO. I 13. The petitioner, claiming to be a practicing advocate cum social activist, filed this writ petition as public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he was aged about 54 years by the date of filing the petition, he is not even qualified for appointment in any government service. 14. It is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service maters, including recruitment, appointment, transfers etc. An identical question came up before the Madhuri Bench of Madras High Court, wherein, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Mayilrajaperumal v. The Secretary to Government, W.P. (MD) No.9088 of 2011 dated 7.9.2016 considered the question as to the maintainability of public interest litigation. 15. An identical question came up before the Madhuri Bench of Madras High Court, wherein, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Mayilrajaperumal v. The Secretary to Government, W.P. (MD) No.9088 of 2011 dated 7.9.2016 considered the question as to the maintainability of public interest litigation. 15. In the facts of the above judgment, the service conditions of the drivers and conductors from the third respondent/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation were questioned, on the ground that when the drivers or conductors should work only for eight hours, the third respondent is illegally compelling to work beyond eight hours continuously and they are directed to work for more than 13 hour continuously in one trip. Such an action of the Corporation was questioned before the Madras High Court by a practicing advocate claiming to be a social activist. In paragraph, 10 of the said judgment, the Court observed that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, no public interest litigation Writ Petition lie in respect of service matters. The petitioner being a practicing Advocate is no way connected with the service of the respondent/Corporation. There are service rules for the third respondent/Corporation and as per the above said rules, employees, namely Driver-cum-Conductors are working in the third respondent/Corporation and that the information furnished by the third respondent/Corporation under Right to Information Act to the petitioner make it clear that there are 2421 drivers and 2425 conductors working in the third respondent/Corporation and totally 910 buses are running and the State Express Transport Corporation’s buses are operating in 192 routes and the employees namely drivers and conductors are working 8 hours per day. The Court held that, based on such information, the petitioner being a practicing advocate who is unconcerned with the Government Department cannot question the same in the guise of public interest litigation. 16. The Madhurai Court also adverted to the judgment in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra), wherein, the Apex Court dealt with the issue to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. 16. The Madhurai Court also adverted to the judgment in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra), wherein, the Apex Court dealt with the issue to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. After considering the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji basher Ahmed and others, (1976) 1 SCC 671 , and the law declared in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 , the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 held as follows: “Section 3 (b) defines the word ‘application’ as an application made under Section 190 The latter Section refers to ‘person aggrieved’ 0 In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. ‘We have already seen that the work’ order’ has been defined in the explanation to sub-so (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.” 17. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 : 2004 (3) ALT 10.2 (DN SC), the Apex Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:- “50 It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression, public interest litigation’ In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, (4th Edn.), ‘public interest’ is defined thus: Public interest. “(1) A matter of public or general interest” does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal right or liability are affected?” 18. In Janata Dal Vs. HS. Chowdary 1993 SCC (Cri.) 36 the Apex Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In Janata Dal Vs. HS. Chowdary 1993 SCC (Cri.) 36 the Apex Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is ‘public interest’, the Supreme Court held as follows: ‘The expression ‘litigation’ means a, legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some Interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected”. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory: because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 19. 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 armory 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 courts 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. 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 20. 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: and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a 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. 21. In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 3 SCC 363 : 2005 (5) ALT 19.2 (DN SC) the Apex Court decided the case on the same lines and held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. 22. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake- of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good (vide State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481 and A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Gal’ Re-Rolling Mills AIR 1994 SC 2151 . 23. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not. be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions, (Vide Buddhi Kola Subba Rao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran (1996) 5 SCC 530 ). 24. The Apex Court also adverted to the principle laid down in Dr. Easy access to justice should not. be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions, (Vide Buddhi Kola Subba Rao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran (1996) 5 SCC 530 ). 24. The Apex Court also adverted to the principle laid down in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra) and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (referred supra) and held as follows: “It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated und whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions or rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. arc all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and gel into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.” 25. In the judgment referred supra, the Madras High Court reviewed the entire law and concluded that. Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters unless the applicant had any interest in the subject matter. 26. In the present case. the petitioner claiming to be a practicing Advocate and social activist filed the present petition bringing to our notice that the paper clippings of news items and the inaction of the respondents I & 2 in taking steps to prevent such abuse by the manpower agencies, contended that the public money of unemployed youth is being looted in the name of employment through outsourcing, though, the petitioner is unconcerned with such employment issues, being a practicing Advocate. 27. It is an undisputed fact that. Prima facie paper clippings are not admissible in evidence, since they are hearsay evidence. 28. No doubt, the news paper clippings published in the newspapers state that the respondents 1 & 2 failed to take steps to prevent such abuse by the manpower agencies, contending that the public money of unemployed youth is being looted in the name of employment through outsourcing agencies, but, that cannot be a ground to infer malafides on the part of respondents 1 & 2. The news items published in the daily is inadmissible in evidence and based on such news items, the Court cannot infer such malafides on the part of respondents 1 & 2. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Borgaram Deuri v. Premodhar Bora 2004 (3) ALT 42 (SC) : (2004) 2 SCC 227 , wherein, the Apex Court basing on the principle laid down in Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta and others 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 5 and also in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court 2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 206 (SC) : (2009) 8 SCC 106 , concluded that, Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Therefore, based on such news items, till it is proved by satisfactory evidence, the Court cannot draw any inference from the news items. 30. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Therefore, based on such news items, till it is proved by satisfactory evidence, the Court cannot draw any inference from the news items. 30. In any view of the matter, based on the news items published in the newspapers annexed to the petition, cannot form the basis to conclude that respondents 1 & 2 failed to take steps against the manpower agencies who are alleged to have been looting public money of unemployed youth, in the name of employment through outsourcing agencies. Hence, on the basis of news items, it is difficult to accept the malafides attributed to the respondents 1 to 2. 31. Therefore, based on the news items in the news papers, reaction of the second respondent directing the Project Officers not to hold the selection process or teaching and non-teaching staff in Sarva Sikshya Abhyan Scheme, temporarily is a haste decision of the authorities, but, it is in the interest of public good. However, after making necessary enquiry, the first respondent noticed that there were no such corrupt practices as alleged by this petitioner. This petitioner did not produce prima facie evidence to substantiate his contention that public money is being looted, in terms of law declared by the Apex Court and for entertaining such public interest litigations, examination of credentials of the petitioner in necessary. If, they are taken into consideration, it would certainly show that the petitioner who is claiming to be a practicing Advocate approached this Court with an intention to popularise himself being an activist and publicise the same. 32. The Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others AIR 2010 SC 3515 had an occasion to deal with the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation. wherein High Court allowed Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner and quashed appointment of the appellant as Chairman of State Electricity Board and directed the State Government to made fresh appointment to the post of Chairman of Board in place of appellant. The Court while reiterating the principles laid in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra). The Court while reiterating the principles laid in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra). Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (referred supra) and reviewing the other judgments held that Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in employment or service matters. 33. In Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. R.K. Mission V. Centenary College and others (2011) 5 SCC 464 : 2011 (6) AL T 6.1 (DN SC), the Supreme Court while adverting to judgments in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra). P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others (referred supra) and other judgments, held as follows: ‘The High Court has committed a serious error in permitting Respondent No. 1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The parameters within which Public Interest Litigation can be entertained by this Court and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated by this Court in a series of cases. By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies; having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the Petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.” 34. If these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, before adverting, the Court has to examine the object behind this litigation as the petitioner had no interest either direct or indirect, atleast a remote interest in the litigation. 35. In the present facts of the case, the proceedings were issued to undertake appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhyan, which is purely temporary in nature. The Central Government contributes part of amount and the balance shall be borne by the State Government to run the schools with teachers, as per the norms referred in the earlier paragraphs. The scheme is purely temporary in nature and when the scheme is temporary, the Court need not undertake impact assessment on account of such appointments. More particularly, the financial burden is on the State if they were allowed to continue in service after expiry of scheme. The scheme is purely temporary in nature and when the scheme is temporary, the Court need not undertake impact assessment on account of such appointments. More particularly, the financial burden is on the State if they were allowed to continue in service after expiry of scheme. When temporary governmental schemes are organized for students and selection process is taken up by the respondents through manpower agencies, selection cannot be questioned as it purely a dispute of employment, which cannot be decided in Public Interest Litigation in view of the law declared by the Apex in the judgments referred supra, more particularly, when the petitioner has no remotest interest in litigation. it is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for personal vendetta. Therefore, the Court shall exercise its power to curb such public interest litigation against a person who is claiming to be a social activist and practicing advocate at the threshold. If such Public Interest Litigations are not nipped at the bud, it will multiply and devouring most of the valuable Courts time, thereby preventing the courts from a concentrating in deciding real disputes where the public valuable rights cue involved. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts referred supra, we find that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation, which is purely a dispute regarding mode of selection of temporary teaching and non-teaching staff of the State is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. POINT NO.2 36. The main relief claimed by this petitioner in this petition is to quash the Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018. The petitioner did not challenge the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff through outsourcing agency i.e., manpower agency notified by the District Collector, But only questioned the Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018, whereby the first respondent directed the Project Director to complete selection process of teaching and non-teaching staff. The petitioner did not challenge the process of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff through outsourcing agency i.e., manpower agency notified by the District Collector, But only questioned the Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018, whereby the first respondent directed the Project Director to complete selection process of teaching and non-teaching staff. If the memo is quashed or set-aside, again respondents 1 & 2 may issue and pass appropriate orders directing the Project Officers to complete the selection process, in view of the urgent need of the staff members, more particularly about the teaching staff to cater to the needs of the students who are prosecuting their studies, as annual examinations are fast approaching. When the respondents issued directions to the Project Directors to undertake selection for the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, in view of the State Government Policy, for outsourcing of temporary staff, the Memo No.ESEOI-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 cannot be set-aside, since it is only direction issued by the respondents to the Project Directors. 37. Through serious allegations of fraud are made based on news items, as stated above, the news items are not admissible in evidence and they do not form the basis for entertaining such public interest litigations and unless those allegations are supported by any prima facie material. In the present facts of the case, in view of publication of news items in papers alleging corrupt practices by man power agencies, the second respondent issued Memo No.ESEOI-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 directing the Project Officers to hold the selection process. But, after making necessary enquiry as to truth in the allegations covered by news items, having found no truth in those allegations, issued the present Memo No. ESE01-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition. Even now, the petitioner did not substantiate the allegation that the manpower agencies playing fraud on the unemployed youth by collecting huge amount for selecting them as teaching and non-teaching staff. Such allegations can be proved at least by filing notarized affidavits of those who paid the amount to the manpower agencies as bribe or any tangible material to substantiate such allegation. Obviously for the reasons best known to the petitioner, made reckless allegations to sling mud on the government and its instrumentalities, as the petitioner resorted to unethical practice and appears to be a busy body. 38. Obviously for the reasons best known to the petitioner, made reckless allegations to sling mud on the government and its instrumentalities, as the petitioner resorted to unethical practice and appears to be a busy body. 38. During hearing, though the learned counsel for the respondents made serious allegations against this petitioner that he demanded two posts at Srikakulam District for the persons interested by him and when the Project Director refused, he resorted to this litigation. But, this allegation is not supported by any material. Consequently, based on such vague unsubstantiated allegation, the petition filed by this petitioner cannot be thrown overhead. However, it is evident from the contention of this petitioner that, this petition is filed obviously with a motive to popularise himself in the District, mostly among the persons who applied for appointment through manpower agencies in the Scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhyan and thus, the litigation can be described as Publicity Interested Litigation rather than Public Interest Litigation, as the petitioner’s credentials are doubtful and has no remotest interest in the litigation, as no public interest is involved. If, for any reason, Memo No.ESEOI-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 is quashed and recruitment process is stalled through manpower agencies, it would not only seriously affect the carrier of the candidates selected for the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, but also adversely affects the studies of the children who are prosecuting their studies. The interests of children will outweigh the interest of public. In the absence of any public injury, it is difficult to quash Memo No.ESEOI-I-2029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018, which is consequential directions issued by the respondents to the Project Directors. 39. In view of our foregoing discussion, we hold that the Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in employment or service disputes, including selection process and mode of selection is not maintainable and the Memo ESEOI-12029/96/2018-P dated 04.09.2018 cannot be quashed or set-aside, at this stage, more particularly, when the academic year is coming to close within short time. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 40. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 41. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.