Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

The recommendation for appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Members (Judicial and Non-Judicial respectively) of the “Institution of Lokayukta” established under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 (Bihar Act 22, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2011), has been put to challenge in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

2. Despite valid service of notices upon respondent No.6, he has not entered appearance. No Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, though a learned Senior Counsel of this Court has addressed the Court defending selection of respondent No.5 and recommendation for appointment as a Member (Judicial) of the “Institution of the Lokayukta”.

3. The petitioner of the present application, under Public Interest Litigation, has described himself to be a social worker claiming to have consistently taken up public causes against corruption in the State of Bihar. There is a declaration in the writ application to the effect that he has neither any direct nor indirect interest in the matter nor any animus with respondent Nos. 5 or 6, whose selections and recommendations to the said post have been put to challenge in the present case.

4. Respondent No.5 is a retired Judge of this High Court, whereas respondent No.6 was a Member of Indian Administrative Service and has also served as Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission.

5. We have heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Additional. Advocate General No. 10, on behalf of the State of Bihar. We have also heard Mr. Surnedra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3, i.e., the Selection Committee, through its Convener-cum-Chairman of the Bihar Legislative Council, Bihar Vidhan Parishad (respondent No.3) and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, learned Counsel, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.4.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case and the nature of grievances raised in the present proceeding, we had directed the respondents, by our order, dated 29.10.2015, to produce the relevant records pertaining to selection/recommendation for appointment to the said posts, in question, for our perusal. The records have accordingly been produced.

7. At the outset, we must mention that there is no dispute over the facts of the case, which have remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and substantiated by the original relevant records produced by the respondents before us for our perusal. We will be dealing with, and making observations on, those facts, which are relevant for present adjudication. However, for better appreciation of the issues involved in this case, we have considered it befitting to take note of the statutory provisions elaborately, which govern constitution of the “Institution of Lokayukta” as a body consisting of three persons, i.e., a Chairperson and two Members, under the Act of 2011, before delving into the factual details.

8. Before the said Act of 2011 came into being, Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1973”), was in vogue, which contained provisions for appointment of a person as Lokayukta under Section 3 of the said Act of 1973. The Act of 1973 stood repealed by operation of Section 59 of the Act of 2011. Whereas, under the Act of 1973, a person to be known as Lokayukta was to be appointed, Lokayukta means, under the present Act of 2011, an Institution, consisting of a Chairperson and two Members, established under Section 3 of the Act of 2011.

9. The Act of 2011 provides, inter alia, for establishment of a Lokayukta institution, its powers and functions, for expeditious investigation and prosecution relating to the allegations of corruption against