- (1.) Aggrieved by the empanelment of respondent No. 5 for a possible appointment of the post of Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh, the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, including the petitioner in person and being of the opinion that the petition is an abuse of process of law, we had no 26.8.2008 passed the following order :- "For reasons that we shall separately record, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The costs shall be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund."
(2.) We now proceed to record our reasons for the above order :- The post of Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh is required to be filled up from amongst IAS Officers borne on the cadre of State of Haryana. The Government of India appears to have sent a request to the Government of Haryana to forward a panel of four IAS Officers for consideration of their names for appointment against the said post. In the panel drawn up by the Government of Haryana, the name of respondent No. 5 was also included apart form three others found eligible for such consideration and appointment. Before, however, an appointment could be made by the competent authority from out of the said panel, the present petition was filed allegedly in public interest seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint respondent No. 5 to the post of Home Secretary as the said respondent was involved in what was described as "various scams" and had been found guilty in a Vigilance enquiry. A further direction requiring respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint any other officer from the panel was also prayed for with a direction that the alleged scams be got investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(3.) In response to a notice of motion issued by this Court, the Government of Haryana filed a counter affidavit in which not only were the bonafide of the petitioner and the maintainability of the writ petition assailed but a specific assertion was made that no vigilance enquiry was pending against respondent No. 5 that could disqualify him from consideration for appointment as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh. The counter affidavit also explained the circumstances pointed out in the writ petition and asserted that there was no basis for the petitioner to either demand a CBI enquiry nor was there any basis for the allegation that respondent No. 5 did not deserve consideration for appointment as Home Secretary. The circumstances in which certain allegations relating to the validity of mining leased in District Bhiwani were made were also explained in the counter affidavit and a specific assertion made that there was no irregularity in the conduct of auction of the said lease by the Auction Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani. The auction had been conducted after wide publicity was given to the same in national level newspapers. That apart, the entire auction proceedings were video graphed by the Auction Committee. Suffice it to say that the counter affidavit filed by the Government fully supported the empanelment of respondent No. 5 and sought the dismissal of the writ petition.;