JUDGMENT : PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ : The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest and seeks the issuance of the writ of quo-warranto against the private respondent Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on the ground that the said respondents have been appointed to various posts in the Sri Venkateshwara Veterinary University, Tirupati, even when they do not fulfill the basic eligibility criteria for such an appointment in terms of the UGC regulations of 2018 and the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation and Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (Entrustment of Additional Functions with respect to the Services of Universities) Act, 2017. 2. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the same has been filed for oblique purposes and to settle personal scores with the University. It is stated that the petitioner's wife, namely Dr.Srilatha, who is working as a professor in the veterinary sciences in the said University, was also a candidate, who had unsuccessfully applied for the post of Dean of Veterinary Sciences in the said University and having failed to make up the merit, the petitioner with a view to seek vengeance against the University, had filed the present petition to settle scores with the University. 3. It is not denied by counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Srilatha had also applied for selection and appointment against the post of Dean of Veterinary Sciences, but had been unsuccessful. This assertion made in the counter-affidavit filed by the University had remained uncontroverted by the petitioner, who chose to remain silent on that aspect. 4. One of the grounds urged by learned counsel for the respondents was that the selection process was complete in all respects. Another aspect highlighted by learned counsel for the University was that the university had issued the notification, dated 15.10.2020, while the petitioner himself was serving as a professor in the same University and retired only in the month of June, 2023. It is also stated that the candidature of his wife was rejected before 14.10.2022 when the orders of appointment with regard to the respondents were issued and the PIL came to be filed almost one year thereafter on 14.09.2023. It is also stated that the candidature of his wife was rejected before 14.10.2022 when the orders of appointment with regard to the respondents were issued and the PIL came to be filed almost one year thereafter on 14.09.2023. The petitioner, it is stated, waited for his retirement before he decided to challenge the appointment of the private respondents. This, it is stated, was done purely for his own convenience during his stay in the University. It is thus stated that since the petitioner had a direct personal interest in the matter, and since the petition was filed with oblique purposes of settling personal scores, the petition is required to be not entertained and dismissed outrightly. 5. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the petitioner has been filing public interest litigations earlier also and further that the fact that the petitioner's spouse also was a candidate, who had applied for one of the posts of Dean (Veterinary Sciences) would not materially affect the right of the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the private respondents, more so when the wife of the petitioner ought not to be treated as an appendage of the petitioner, but as an independent individual. 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 7. On a perusal of the material record and on the basis of the arguments that were advanced during the course of hearing, it is clear that the petitioner has a direct and personal interest in the present litigation inasmuch as his wife, Dr. Srilatha, had herself been a candidate for the post of Dean (Veterinary Sciences) in the same University in which the petitioner was working. The present petition clearly appears to have been filed to somehow get even with the University by questioning the selection and appointment of the private respondents, which is directly relatable to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner's wife. 8. Time and again, the Apex Court, in a plethora of judgments, has reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedly filed in public interest inasmuch as the process of the Court was being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. 8. Time and again, the Apex Court, in a plethora of judgments, has reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedly filed in public interest inasmuch as the process of the Court was being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 9. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) SCC 590 , the Apex Court held: “12. 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 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…. 14. 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. 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 imposters 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." 10. The aforementioned principle was also reiterated in the State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 , wherein it was emphasized that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. 11. In the present case, personal and oblique motive is writ large on the face of it and therefore, we dismiss the petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in the account of the State Legal Services Authority, which will be used for the benefit of the visually impaired as also the hearing impaired. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.