ORDER : We have heard the petitioner appearing in person who is a student of Law. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service is given charge of the posts of Principal Secretaries of the Department of Labour as well as the Department of Commerce and Industries (MSME and Mines) which will lead to conflict of interests. His submission is that the conflict of interest will lead to breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner is relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in, (2015) 3 SCC 251 India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Purandhar Lagama Ingale and Others vs. Land Tribunal, Raibag and Others, (1978) 2 Kant LJ 339 4. After having perused both the decisions, we find that the same are not at all applicable to the facts of the case. Firstly, we find that the issue of conflict of interest does not arise by allowing one civil servant to hold charge of the posts of Principal Secretaries of two departments. Secondly, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court cannot decide whether a civil servant can be allowed to hold charge of two departments. The entire petition proceeds on the wrong premise of conflict of interest. The petition is based on some apprehensions expressed in a newspaper report which is at Annexure-A. 5. This is not a fit case at all where the petitioner can be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that also, by filing a petition in the nature of a public interest litigation.