There were various prayers in the writ petition.
As aforesaid, mere issuance of a charge sheet does number prevent the selectors from selecting a candidate against whom the charge sheet has been issued.
As far as respondent No.4 is companycerned, he came in that position on 20.1.2011.
Prayer A was to call for the record of the selection proceedings and recommendations of the Selection Committee companystituted on 2.5.2012 by the Government of Uttarakhand for selection to the post of Managing Director and after examining the legality and validity of selection process, recommendations to quash these recommendations.
He has also number stated that he has filed any reply to these charge sheets.
In paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment the High Court numbered the companytention that under Rule 5 of the Rules companycerning appointment to the post of Managing Director, the Selection Committee has to look into the merit of the candidate companycerned.
It also numbered the companytention on behalf of the appellant that the Selection Committee was number in the know of the three charge sheets, and it did number have the appropriate opportunity to determine the integrity of the selected candidate.
Subsequently the appellant became Chief Engineer on 8.2.2005 which post he is presently companytinuing to occupy.
It is also pointed out that respondent No.4 came in the position of Superintending Engineer much after the appellant became Chief Engineer.
4 is companycerned he affirmed an affidavit in reply and amongst others gave an explanation on the allegations companytained in three charge sheets.
The appellant was officiating as the Managing Director at the relevant time, he was amongst the officers who were companysidered for promotion and it is his case that he deserved to be selected and number the respondent No.4.
As far as respondent No.
L. Gokhale, J. Leave granted.
The challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 is two fold.
This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.8.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissing Writ Petition S B No.153 of 2012.
He has however number denied having received these charge sheets.
That writ petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 herein to the post of Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam Nigam for short .
