appointment to post of CVC was to satisfy not only eligibility criteria of candidate but also decision making process of recommendation by HPC - Decision to recommend had got to be an informed decision keeping in mind fact that Commission as an institution had to perform an important function of vigilance administration - If a statutory body like HPC failed to look into relevant material having nexus to object and purpose of 2003 Act or took into account irrelevant circumstances then its decision would stand vitiated on ground of official arbitrariness - Commission, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and HPC had placed emphasis only on bio-data of empanelled candidates and they had not looked at matter from larger perspective of institutional integrity including institutional competence and functioning of Commission - DoPT, on various dates, noted that penalty proceedings should be initiated against 2nd respondent on number of occasions, however, such notings were not considered in juxtaposition with Commission's clearance for 2nd respondent's appointment - Further, even in bio-data of 2nd respondent, there was no reference to earlier notings of DoPT - HPC's recommendation was entirely premised on blanket clearance given by Commission and on fact of earlier appointments of 2nd respondent as Chief Secretary of a State - Further, in process, HPC had failed to take into consideration pendency of a corruption case against 2nd respondent - HPC, therefore, had failed to consider relevant material keeping in mind purpose and policy of 2003 Act and hence its recommendation was non est in law - Impugned appointment of 2nd respondent as CVC was quashed - Petitions allowed. Issuance of Writ of quo warranto - Procedure to be adopted - Whether writ of quo warranto was issuable in instant case Held, before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the court inter-alia that the office in question is a public office and it is held by a person without legal authority and that leads to the inquiry as to whether the appointment of the said person has been in accordance with law or not - A writ of quo warranto is issued to prevent a continued exercise of unlawful authority - In the main writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of any other writ, direction or order which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this Case - Thus a declaratory relief was also sought beside issuance of a writ of quo warranto - Instant writ petition, therefore, was maintainable and writ of quo warranto was issuable - Petitions allowed. Appointment of CVC - Role of President of India - Determination - Whether appointment of 2nd respondent by President of India should be questionable in a Public Interest Litigation since President was not acted on advice of Council of Ministers under article 74 of Constitution Held, CVC was appointed under Section 4(1) of 2003 Act by President by warrant under her hand and seal after obtaining recommendation of a Committee consisting of Prime Minister as Chairperson and two other Members - Although under 2003 Act, CVC was appointed after obtaining recommendation of HPC, such recommendation had got to be accepted by Prime Minister, who was concerned authority under Article 77(3), and if such recommendation was forwarded to President under Article. 74, then President was bound to act in accordance with advice tendered - Advice tendered to President by Prime Minister regarding appointment of CVC, therefore, would be binding on President - Hence, there was no merit in contention advanced on behalf of 2nd respondent that in matter of appointment of CVC under Section 4(1) of 2003 Act President was not to act on advice of Council of Ministers as was provided in Article 74 of Constitution - Petitions allowed. Whether for Appointment of CVC recommendation of HPC under proviso to Section 4(1) was required to be unanimous Held, to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners would mean conferment of a "veto right" on one of the members of the HPC - To confer such a power on one of the members would amount to judicial legislation - Act of 2003 was enacted with intention that such HPC would act in a bipartisan manner and should perform its statutory duties keeping in view larger national interest - Each of Members was presumed by legislature to act in public interest and if veto power was given to one of three Members, working of Act would become unworkable - Under Section 4(2) of 2003 Act it had been stipulated that vacancy in Committee should not invalidate appointment, therefore, recommendation under Section 4 was not required to be unanimous - Petitions allowed.
