C P MAJHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application has its origin in a letter dated 3-9-1997 written by Shri Chaitanya Prasad Majhi, Ex. Member of the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short 'the OPSC') to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court making a grievance about certain irregularities, commissions and omisisons, committed by the Union Public Service Commission (for short 'the UPSC') in the Civil Services Examination, 1996. The said letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and office was directed to serve a copy of the petition on learned Senior Standing Counsel (Central ) and to send a copy of the same to the U.P.S.C.

(2.) The basis for the allegations, is said to be a news item published in 'Pragati Badi' a local daily dated 11-8-1997, after publication of the result, a copy of which is enclosed to the letter in question. The main controversy centered round formation of several Boards for conducting interview, appointment and involvement of Ex. M.L.A. of Rajasthan - Smt. Kanta Kathuria as a Member of the U.P.S.C. It is alleged that she is deeply involved in politics and allowing her to preside over one of the Boards, was illegal. It is also alleged that in spite of the fact that vacancies were 739 as intimated by the Central Government , the U.P.S.C. has recommended only 737 candidates.On 17-2-1998, another additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner reiterating allegations made in the letter as well as making several additional allegations questioning eligibility of Smt. Kanta Kathuria, Ex. M.L.A. Rajasthan as a Member of the U.P.S.C. It is stated that due to her political background she was not even fit to be a Member of State Public Service Commission much less of a higher body like U.P.S.C. Admittedly , the petitioner was a Member of the O.P.S.C. and was also involved in politics inasmuch as he was an Union Deputy Minister and a Cabinet Minister of Orissa.

(3.) On behalf of the U.P.S.C. a detailed counter affidavit has been filed repudiating the allegations made in different paragraphs of the letter as well as subsequent affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit . It is once again reiterated that the appointment of Ex. M.L.A. and allowing her to preside over the Selection Board is illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner has also made several suggestions for conducting a fool proof selection process by the U.P.S.C.