Judgment :

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- This writ petition is an offshoot of WP (C) No. 150 of 1997. The main grievance in the said writ petition related to alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by Respondent 3 in the present writ petition who is Respondent 7 in the earlier writ petition. It is unnecessary to go into the maze of factual controversies involved in the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition. Challenge is essentially to the appointment of Respondent 3 Ms Neera Yadav as Chief Secretary of Respondent 2 i.e. the State of Uttar Pradesh. Interim prayer in the IA is to stay functioning of Respondent 3 in the said post.

2. It would suffice to note that from 10-1-1994 to 8-11-1995, Respondent 3 was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short "NOIDA"). The then Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "CBI") on 6-12-1995 wrote a letter to the then Cabinet Secretary, Government of India seeking sanction for registering a preliminary inquiry into certain allegations of corruption committed by, Respondent 3. The request was reiterated by the then Director of CBI on16-12-1996.

3. It appears that at different stages allegations were looked into by CBI and one-man Commission of Inquiry under a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. According to the petitioner, initially the State of U.P. took thct stand that on the basis of findings of the Commission of Inquiry, prima facie case was made against Respondent 3 and disciplinary proceedings were intended to be initiated under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (in short "the Rules"). On 20-1-1998 this Court directed CBI to conduct investigation in respect of the alleged irregularities. It appears that on 8-11-2001 Respondent 2, the State of U.P. filed an affidavit stating that since the CBI inquiry was under progress into the allegations, it was decided by the State Government to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the CBI inquiry was over. Thereafter, CBI obtained sanction from the Central Government and filed charge-sheets before the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad. After the charge-sheets were filed Respondent 3 . made an application for discharge under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") which was rejected. The, order of rejection has some significance in the present dispute. While rejecting the prayer for discharge, learned Special Judge directed framing ofcharges. The order rejecting the prayer for discharge is currently under challenge before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 2284 of 2004. It appears from the order passed by the High Court directing stay of further proceedings, that the primary question before it related to absence of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code. By order dated 11-1-2005 this Court appointed a Commission under Mr Justice K.T. Thomas, a retired Judge of this Court to go into various questions relating. to allotment of plots as well as into the issue as to why the disciplinary action had been dropped against several respondents in Writ Petition No. 150 of 1997 including Respondent 3 who is Respondent 7 in the said writ petition.

4. On 30-4-2005 Respondent 3 was appointed as Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. This appointment is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the post of Chief Secretary is a key post, and in total violation of the norms fixed by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, OM No. 2201114/91-Estt. (A) dated 14-9-1992, the appointment of Respondent 3 was made as a Chief Secretary. Though in the writ petition, averments were made to the effect that such

appointment was by way of promotion, in the additional affidavit filed it has been clarified that though it is not a promotion, yet it is a prestigious appointment and looking into the tainted reputation and doubtful integri