By the Court.—Heard Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General alongwith Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri A.N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and Sri Abdul Moin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Government and the consequential appointment of the respondent No. 4-Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, the former Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court, presently occupying the office of the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to the post of Chairperson of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 on the ground that the appointment was impermissible keeping in view the bar of Section 11(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the process of appointment to exclusively consider the candidature of only one Chief Justice without there being any requisite statutory exercise having been undertaken for holding selections, the process adopted by the State Government apart from the aforesaid debarment clause has vitiated the same.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. who contends that the petitioner has no individual grievance so as to maintain this writ petition which is not a public interest litigation and consequently in the absence of any such pleadings to substantiate her locus, the present writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.

5. Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, replying to the said submission has urged that the petitioner is not a stranger to such proceedings and for this he has invited the attention of the Court to paragraphs 20 to 23 of the writ petition that have been supplemented by a supplementary-affidavit contending that the petitioner herself has moved various complaints before the U.P. State Human Rights Commission and has supplied two copies of the complaints to urge that she has sufficient interest to maintain this petition, hence the preliminary objection deserves to be overruled.

6. Having considered the submissions raised we find that if the petitioner is a complainant before the State Human Rights Commission then it cannot be said that she does not have any locus to maintain this petition in her individual interest, inasmuch as the occupation of the office of a Chairperson by an individual while dealing with such complaints would be directly related to the status of the petitioner as a person aggrieved before the Commission. We are, therefore, not inclined to dismiss the petition on account of any absence of locus on the part of the petitioner.

7. Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, on merits has vehemently urged that in view of the provisions of Section 11(a) of the 1985 Act the respondent No. 4 would be ineligible for further engagement or appointment as the Chairperson of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission. The reason would be clearly discernible from the section itself which spells out the ineligibility of any further employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. The argument rests on the premise that the appointment as a Chairperson of the Commission would be an employment even if the Chairperson is not an employee under the State Government. It would further be under the State Government inasmuch as the appointment is by the State Government and Section 26 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 clearly stipulates the terms and conditions including salaries and allowances payable to the Chairperson and Members of the Commission to be fix