IMPORTANT POINT
CBI investigation – Mere sweeping remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation, until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal offence is made out – Directions for CBI enquiry should not be ordered by High Courts or Supreme Court in a routine manner.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. In this batch of appeals, the common order dated 18.09.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No. 140 of 2022 along with order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No. 117 of 2023 in Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, have been assailed. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the instant appeals are outlined below as thus:

Since the issues and facts involved in these appeals are common, hence they are being decided by a common order.

2. For the sake of brevity, facts of C.A. No. 11842/2025 are being adverted to. As borne from records, the controversy was set into motion when Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original writ petitioners) filed writ petition¹ [Writ Appeal No. 36/2021] challenging the process of selection of various posts under the Secretariat of Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh as notified vide ‘Advertisement No. 1/2020’ dated 17.09.2020 and supplementary advertisement dated 27.09.2020, inter-alia, contending that the said process of selection was unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and collusive. The petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire process of selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2020 dated 17.9.2020 and Supplementary Advertisement dated 27.9.2020 issued by opposite party No. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to proceed with the selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2020 dated 17.9.2020 and Supplementary Advertisement dated 27.9.2020 issued by opposite party no. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to hold fresh process of selection in accordance with the scheme of U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and conditions of Services) Rules, 1976 as amended vide 4th Amendment Rules 2019.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts as per Scheme of Government Order dated 22.5.1998 contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition and further be pleased to consider them for regular appointment.

(v) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(vi) Allow the writ petition with costs.”

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed and the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631, vide order dated 12.04.2023 issued the following directions:

“27. In view thereof, to maintain the public confidence in the recruitment process in the Legislative Assembly and Legi