By the Court.—By means of the present petition the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 13.6.2007 issued by the Director General, Police, U.P., whereby an enquiry committee, to be presided over by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and two other Deputy Inspector General of Police as its members, had been constituted to enquire into the irregularities of recruitment of constables for Police/P.A.C./Wireless for 2005-2006. The constitution of the committee was said to be tainted by the inclusion of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 who themselves were said to be involved in the process of recruitment/selection of constables made in the 2005-2006. It has further been assailed on the ground that once alleged irregularities having not been found proved in earlier judicial proceedings wherein same question was involved and this Court upon perusal of entire record pertaining to selection process having opined that there were no such irregularities, there was no occasion to again delve upon the same question. According to petitioners the constitution of committee itself was tainted with oblique motives as also the enquiry was to be conducted pursuant thereto at the behest of 3 sitting M.L.As., of the ruling party, one of which was M.L.A. In earstwhile Government, but did not raise his voice against alleged irregularities.

2. According to the petitioners since opposite parties No. 4 and 5 were involved in the process of selection, they ought not to have been made members of the committee to enquire into the allegations contained in the complaints. The petitioners’ case is that there was no reason for deviating from the settled procedure of getting enquiry conducted by established agency, such as Vigilance Department, C.I.D., or C.B.C.I.D., or Anti-Corruption Department. Thus the said committee was neither constituted under any statute or commission of enquiry or any other statute which required for constitution of a committee to conduct an enquiry. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the initiation of the enquiry there had been a pre-designed strategy to propagate against the recruitment process against the concerned officers with a sole intention to malign them in public life. There has been a systematic and selective leakage of secret and confidential documents. According to the petitioners enquiry committee broke open the sealed records in the absence of the Chairman, although they were available. Tampering of record is also alleged in the petition.

3. The recruitment process for constables in Police/P.A.C./Wireless department was initiated in early part of the year 2005 and completed in October 2006. Some of the unsuccessful candidates, who participated in the selection process, approached this Court in writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005 - Harender Singh v. State of U.P. and others) challenging the entire process of selection. This Court vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2005 after perusing the entire record placed before it by the department, dismissed the writ petitions. The said judgment and order was not challenged thereafter and the same became final. Another writ petition was filed by one Udai Singh Yadav (Chest No. 95) v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34375 of 2006 before the High Court at Allahabad) wherein it was averred that the petitioner had not been awarded marks correctly. The answer books were produced before the Court in sealed cover and it was found that the petitioner had rightly been awarded the marks that he had obtained. Vide order dated 17.7.2006 the said petition was dismissed on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Services Authority. Another petition was filed by an unsuccessful candidate (writ petition No. 34445 of 2006 -Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) challenging the process of selection on the ground that the marks awarded were not correct. Vide order dated 17.7.2006 the writ petition was dis