Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against Arun Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 3, at present holding the office of Chief Engineer (Project) in the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as UPSIDC). There are other prayers also i.e. for issuance of directions in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent No. 3 from continuing on the post of Chief Engineer and Architect-cum-Town Planner, in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to recover the entire salary and perks received by the respondent No. 3 since the date of his appointment and finally a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and other promotional and consequential appointments in UPSIDC.

2. The petition has been filed by one Anil Kumar Verma who claims to be a qualified graduate Architect from I.I.T., Roorkee having a diploma in Town Planning from the University of Szczecin (Poland) and a member of the Council for the Architecture which is a statutory body under the Architects Act, 1972. The petitioner claims to be working with UPSIDC, since 1986. He has been given his due promotion from time to time and at present is a Class-I officer in UPSIDC.

3. The petition was presented before the Court on 27.1.2014 and came up before the Bench on 29.1.2014. The progress of the writ petition before the Court has a checkered history. It is necessary for this Court to reproduce the relevant facts in that regard, before adverting to the merits of the petition.

4. The manner in which the petition has progressed has necessarily to be stated because of the recluse application and the transfer petition as filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and for appropriately examining as to whether this Bench is justified in hearing this petition or not.

5. How right the Apex Court was when it recorded in para 147 of its judgment dated 6.5.2014 made in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2014 (Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others), as below:

“The number of similar litigants, as the parties in this group of cases, is on the increase. They derive their strength from the abuse of legal process. Counsels are available, if the litigant is willing to pay their fee.”

6. How accurate the Apex Court was in para 145 (1) of the same judgment in deprecating the practice of seeking recluse from the hearing of the case by calculated psychological offensives and mind games adopted by Senior Advocates and thereafter to command as follows :

“We deprecate such tactics and commend a similar approach to other Courts, when they experience such behaviour.”

7. A Division Bench of this Court after considering the averments made in the writ petition qua the High School mark-sheet and certificate and other academic documents of Respondent No. 3 being not genuine vide order dated 29.1.2014 required their production from the Standing Counsel after summoning the same from the U. P. Board for High School and Intermediate (hereinafter referred as the ‘U.P. Board’). Records from the Awadh University, Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’) qua respondent No. 3 were also called for.

8. After examining the original records of the U.P. Board as produced, the Bench on 5.2.2014 directed that notice of the petition be issued to respondent No. 3 with a further direction upon UPSIDC to produce the entire service records of respondent No. 3. Personal affidavit from the Secretary of the U. P. Board was also called for.

9. Appearance was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Shishir Prakash, Advocate on 12.2.2014 and on the same date he made an application on the administrative side, before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice on behalf of respondent No. 3, for this writ petition being heard by some other bench. The application was rejected by means of the