Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It is further contended that the main ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has not followed the general directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj's case. However, the Selection Committee for recommending the names of individual for appointment to the

- 16 -

posts of Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners was constituted on 03.08.2018, pursuant to which, the applications were invited vide notification dated 07.08.2018. The Selection Committee met on 06.02.2019 and upon considering all the applications on merit, resolved to recommend the name of respondent No.2 as Chief Information Commissioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as State Information Commissioners. Therefore, the entire selection process was completed even prior to the judgment rendered in Anjali Bhardwaj's case on 15.02.2019. The said judgment being prospective in nature, would not affect the appointment of the respondent No.2 and in fact the directions issued in Anjali Bhardwaj's case have been followed by the respondent No.1 while recommending the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

- 30 -

the notification dated 07.08.2018. Therefore, there is no ground to set-aside the Order passed by the learned single Judge. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner having participated in the selection process, is estopped from filing the writ petition and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The learned counsel further invited attention of this Court to paragraph-62 of the Judgment in Anjali Bhardwaj's case, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the State Government to undertake the selection process and to fill up the posts within two months from the date of the said Judgment. He contended that the State Government has complied with the said direction by completing the selection process within the stipulated time. Learned counsel further contended that, it is not the case of the appellant that he is better qualified than respondent Nos.2 to 4. Very curiously, in the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner has sought to direct the respondent to appoint the candidates for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners as per the direction/ guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Anjali Bhardwaj's case, in a transparent manner. The very prayer is not