CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It prays for a writ of Quo Warranto against the Haryana Public Service Commission and also a Mandamus restraining it from continuing the process of selection for appointment against the posts of Assistant District Attorney in the Prosecution Department of State of Haryana. It also prayed for a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to hand over the entire record and the process of selection to the High Court, so that the said process is undertaken by the High Court in place of Haryana Public Service Commission.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, we are of the view that this petition is totally mis-conceived. The prayer for quo warranto is on the face of it misplaced against respondent No. 2 who is a constitutional body.

(3.) That apart there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that the selection process for appointment against the posts of Assistant Deputy Attorney should be undertaken by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to point out any statutory or any other provisions which would make the Haryana Public Service Commission inadequate or dis-qualified for making the proposed selections. The only argument which was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the case of selection and appointments of Civil Judges, the High Court is examining whether the selection process should be transferred to the High Court instead of the same being completed by the Haryana Public Service Commission. We do not think there is any comparison in the selection being made by the Haryana Public Service Commission against the cadre of Assistant District Attorney and in the Cadre of selection of Civil Judges, the process of which is being undertaken by the High Court. At any rate , there is no constitutional obligation for the High Court to undertake the selections of Assistant District Attorneys in the State. It was next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the process of selection is not over and that since the members conducted the selection having been appointed by the government in power, the said process will be vitiated by extraneous consideration. We find no merit in that contention. Whether or not there is any illegality or irregularity in the selection process, is a matter which can be examined by the Court at the instance of any candidate who may have applied for selection. The petitioner obviously is not one of the candidates. He has already retired as a District Attorney and is now practicing as an Advocate at Chandigarh. He has therefore no locus standi to question the validity of the selection process. That apart, the question whether the selection process undertaken by four members of the Commission will suffer from any illegality is also a matter that can be raised and examined at an appropriate level at the instance of proceedings filed by a candidate. We see no reason to undertake that process at the instance of a person who is obviously not process of selection. His only concern is for making the selection pure and unaffected by extraneous consideration. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.