Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) I. The reference to the Full Bench - the subject that requires full -fledged consideration 1. The present writ petition has been placed before this Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the issues arising out of appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short referred to as 'the Commission'). His appointment was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court just on the eve of the occasion for swearing -in ceremony. While ordering notice on the petition on July 13, 2011, the Court noticed the importance of the issues raised in the case and referred the matter observing, as follows: 6. Even though, Article 316 of the Constitution does not prescribe any particular procedure, having regard to the purpose and nature of appointment, it cannot be assumed that power of appointment need not be regulated by any procedure. It is undisputed that person to be appointed must have competence and integrity. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R/o Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, : (2000)4 SCC 309, Ram Kumar Kashyap and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., : AIR 2010 SC 1151 and In re Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and Ors. : (2010)13 SCC 586. 7. If it is so, question is how such persons are to be identified and selected and whether in the present case, procedure adopted is valid and if not, effect thereof. We are of the view that these questions need to be considered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. Accordingly, we refer the matter to a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. 2. Even before the case got underway through arguments, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, submitted that the questions of law as framed by the Division Bench do not arise for consideration as such questions stand concluded by the judgments of Supreme Court. This Full Bench shall therefore return the reference without any more adjudication. He stated that the Division Bench has, even while making a reference to the Full Bench, observed that the irregularities and illegalities pointed out by the Petitioner in the writ petition do not stand substantiated.Therefore, this Bench cannot frame new questions and the reference made by the Bench should be returned unanswered. Mr. Rao further sought to present at the threshold that the Public Interest Litigation challenging appointment of a person is not maintainable and that only an aggrieved candidate can challenge the appointment. We have maintained that the case required a full fledged discussion that cannot be short -circuited by a contention of non -maintainability of the reference as a preliminary point and urged the counsel to make their arguments on all the essential points brought out through their respective pleadings. II. Array of parties; Suo motu Impleadment of parties and particulars that were sought from them 3. After reference to Full Bench, on 19.7.2011, we suo motu directed the impleadment of the State of Haryana and Haryana Public Service Commission, as issues common in respect of the States of Punjab and Haryana, were likely to arise. Both the States and their Public Service Commissions were directed to furnish the following information:
(2.) THE number of posts filled up by respective Public Service Commissions in the last five years; The number of posts which have been taken out of the purview of the Public Service Commission in the last five years;
(3.) WHETHER any Regulations have been framed in respect of the appointment of the Members and Chairman of the Commission. III. Facts set forth in the writ petition that have given rise to the lis (a) The personal attributes necessary for the high constitutional post;