Nisar Ahmad Kakru, C.J. - (1.) THIS public interest litigation originates from an application, sent by post to the Chief Justice of this Court, alleging community bias, against the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short Chairman and Commission respectively) in respect of interview held by the Commission for recruitment to Group-I and Group-II, in the year 2006.
(2.) BELIEVING the information given in the application by the petitioner, it came to be registered as a "Taken up Public Interest Litigation". Thereafter, the applicant engaged a counsel and filed an affidavit, apparently in furtherance of an endeavour to expand the contours of litigation, to the extent of registration of a crime of disproportionate assets, against the Chairman, with a prayer for investigation thereof, by the Central Bureau of Intelligence (hereinafter CBI), on the allegation of unfair selection, alleged by someone in a program, displayed by a Television Channel but without any details and without any evidence, much less tenable in law and there being absolutely no evidence, admissible in law, supporting the allegation, it would be both impermissible and unjust in law to believe the allegation leveled in a program telecast by a Television channel. This brings us to the conduct of the petitioner, who, in the first instance, filed an application, giving an impression that the legal system is quite unknown to him and has no personal interest to achieve, but subsequently engaged a counsel and filed a detailed affidavit, converting the application into an adversary litigation and expansive reliefs, therefore, it was deemed appropriate to have the petitioner before us, to know his credentials. In compliance thereto, he entered appearance and on his oral examination, it came to our notice that he is son of an Advocate therefore he cannot be totally ignorant about the legal system. His examination revealed further that he was a candidate in the year 2006 for Group-I examination and having failed to make it, started preparation for civil services examination and in the meanwhile instead of challenging the selection in his individual right, resorted to a shortcut mode of complaint before the Chief Justice against the evaluation of performance of the candidates in the interview. The facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs inter alia , suggest that the petitioner has filed the application to get away from procedural conditionalties and scrutiny, a public interest litigation has to go through and escaped fulfillment of requirements successfully and to sustain the petition, it is averred by him that only Reddy community to which respondent - Chairman belongs, was given 90% marks and no candidate from Backward Class, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was awarded that percentage. How has Commission responded to the averment, apt it is to extract para 9 of the counter affidavit of the Commission; "It is also relevant to submit here that in the interview only 75 candidates belonging to forward community got more than 80% of the marks i.e. 72/90 where as 84 candidates belonging to Backward Class Community got more than 80% of marks i.e. 72/90." The stand disclosed by the Commission makes it very clear that the candidates of Backward Classes community getting 80% points in interview outnumber the candidates belonging to forward community and this factual assertion is not countered by the writ petitioner. The allegations are thus unfounded.
(3.) WE have minutely gone through the application as also the subsequent affidavit, but we find no mention about petitioner's appearance in the examination as a candidate. There is also no mention in the application and affidavit that Backward Class, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category candidates too were awarded 90% marks. Thus, suppression of material facts is manifest. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that filing of application by the petitioner, amounts to devising of a mode in the name and guise of public interest litigation, to promote his personal interest with a view to embarrass and cause harassment to the Chairman and the Commission. He has also made the public time a casualty, and has subjected the Commission to an avoidable expenditure on litigation, for no genuine or bona fide reason and such conduct of his amounts to abuse of process of the Court.;