JUDGMENT : PRAKASH GUPTA, J. This petition in public interest has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 31.10.2020, whereby respondent no. 5 has been appointed/posted as Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan. It has also been prayed that the respondent-State be directed to frame appropriate statutory Rules/Guidelines regarding appointment and fixation of tenure for the post of Chief Secretary. Further, prayer was also made to direct the respondent - State to make fresh appointment to the post of Chief Secretary following the principles of merit cum seniority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that traditionally the senior most IAS Officer within the State is chosen as the Chief Secretary, but in the instant case, respondent no. 5, who was at Sr. No. 11 in the seniority list, has been appointed as the Chief Secretary of the State, while the officers senior to him were superseded without assigning any reason and in utter disregard to the rule of merit cum seniority. 3. We have heard the learned counsel and considered the submission made by him. 4. This petition in public interest has been filed by two petitioners namely : (i) Samta Andolan Samiti; and (ii) Sanjay Sharma. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner no. 1 is a society and petitioner no. 2 is a social activist. None of the officers, who has been allegedly superseded by the respondent no. 5, has been impleaded as a party in this petition. It is well settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non - appointee to assail the legality of appointment/posting order and a third party has no locus standi to challenge the legality or correctness of the action. In this view of the matter, the petitioners have no locus to file the present PIL petition challenging the appointment/posting of the respondent no. 5 as Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : AIR 1993 SC 892 has held that ‘public interest’ does not mean mere curiosity. 6. The instant petition is not maintainable also for the reason that appointment/posting of a person which is a service matter, does not come within the purview of ‘public interest litigation’. 7. 6. The instant petition is not maintainable also for the reason that appointment/posting of a person which is a service matter, does not come within the purview of ‘public interest litigation’. 7. The issue involved in this petition i.e. appointment of a Chief Secretary of a State Government directly came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the post of Chief Secretary is a highly sensitive post. It is a post of great confidence and a lynchpin of administration. For smooth functioning of the executive, complete rapport and understanding between the Chief Secretary on the one hand, and the Chief Minister, on the other is must. The Chief Minister as the head of the Government is in ultimate charge of the administration and it is he, who is politically answerable to the people for the achievements and failures of the Government. If, therefore, for any valid reason, the Chief Secretary looses the confidence of the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister may legitimately, in the larger interests of administration, transfer the Chief Secretary to another post, provided of course that it does not involve violation of any of his legal or constitutional rights. With the vast multitudinous activities which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require high degrees of intellect and specialised experience. The Government therefore has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, keeping in view the larger interests of the administration and the prevailing circumstances. 8. A similar issue with respect to appointment to the post of Chief Secretary also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 202 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under:— “The basic question is whether, the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Chief Secretary is proper. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that as back as on 17.4.2004 the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the Chief Secretary's grade with a particular scale of pay. Since the respondent No. 3 belonged to the said cadre and grade, one of the posts on which she could be appointed is the post of Chief Secretary. 2 and 3 have submitted that as back as on 17.4.2004 the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the Chief Secretary's grade with a particular scale of pay. Since the respondent No. 3 belonged to the said cadre and grade, one of the posts on which she could be appointed is the post of Chief Secretary. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in her appointment. Though the post of Chief Secretary may belong to a particular grade/cadre, it is certainly a key post. The importance of this post was noted by this Court in E.P. Royyappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. ( (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555 ). The argument presently advanced is that since respondent No. 3 has been continuing in the post for five months, no orders should be passed regarding her appointment till the Commission gives its report. Had this consideration weighed with the State Government when it made the appointment there may not have been any difficulty. It could have,; considering the importance of the post, awaited the report of the Commission headed by Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas. It is not the case of respondent No. 2-the State of U.P. that no other officer is suitable to hold that post or that the services of respondent No. 3 are so indispensable that none but she should be appointed as the Chief Secretary. This is purely a case of justifying an action. Linked with it is the question of transparency in action. It is true that the allegations against respondent No. 3 have to be established. It is often said that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. v. Lannon, (1968) 3 All ER 304 said “justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking “The Judge is biased”. The logic is equally applicable to Governmental action and Government. The State Government could have avoided the washing of dirty linen which as contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is the sole object of the writ petition. We do not think it necessary to delve into the question of maintainability of the writ petition as the same, as noted at the threshold appears to be an offshoot of the earlier petition.” 9. 2 and 3 is the sole object of the writ petition. We do not think it necessary to delve into the question of maintainability of the writ petition as the same, as noted at the threshold appears to be an offshoot of the earlier petition.” 9. It is thus the prerogative of the State to appoint/post a person on the post of Chief Secretary as per his suitability and eligibility. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo, (2014) 1 SCC 161 , held that suitability or eligibility of a candidate for appointment to a post is within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. The only thing that can be scrutinised by Courts is whether the appointment is contrary to the applicable statutory provisions/rules. 11. We may also add here that the issue as to whether Public Interest Litigation would be maintainable in service matters is no longer res integra and stands settled by a number of decisions, some of which, have been noted hereinabove. 12. Challenge to an appointment to a public office can be made by way of writ of quo warranto and that too, when the appointment has been made contrary to some statutory provisions or rules. In the case at hand, since respondent no. 5 holds a statutory post, there exists relationship of servant and master between him and the Government and his placement to function as Chief Secretary after being appointed in pay scale of Chief Secretary is nothing but an incidence of service for which, no Public Interest Litigation deserves to be entertained. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing the mass frivolous public interest petitions being filed before Constitutional Courts, deprecated such practice in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 . In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:— (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 14. It is not in dispute that Respondent no. 5 was amongst the eleven eligible candidates/officers for appointment/posting on the post of Chief Secretary and his consent for being appointed as the Chief Secretary was also taken. The eligibility of respondent no. 5 to be appointed as Chief Secretary has not been put to question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any statutory eligibility which Respondent no. 5 lacks and which would vitiate his appointment/posting as Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we are of the considered view that this writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, challenging appointment of Respondent no. 5 as Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.