Judgment U.P.Singh and R.N.Sahay JJ. 1. All India Independent Lawyers Forum, Ranchi Bihar through its President Sri K.. K. Jha Kamal, a practising Advocate of this Court has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayar for quashing the warrant of appointment of respondent No. 1 Sri Justice S. K. Chattopadhyaya, a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court. The challenge has been made on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to the well established norms and principles laid down for the appointment of a High Court Judge. It has been further asserted that the appointment is contrary to the procedures and principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri S. P. Gupta 1981 (Suppl.) SCC 85. Further direction has been sought to be issued to respondent No. 1 not perform the functions and duties of the High Court Judge in view of the illegal and unconstitutional appointment and the same being void ab irtitio, until the validity and constitutionality of his appointment is tested by this Court. Further, a writ of quo warranto has been sought for declaring the post held by respondent No. i as vacant. 2. This writ application has been filed by the said Forum called All India Independent Lawyers Forum, as a Public Interest Litigation. Sri K.K. Jha, Kamal a practising Advocate of this Court has appeared in person and in capacity of being the President of the said Forum has raised this contention that the said respondent No. 1 did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed under Article 217 (2) of the Constitution and it was contended, inter alia, whether he is of sufficient matured age which is generally considered a good guide for a sombre approach in the Court of law, has he an unimpeachable integrity, a spotless character, is he a man of reliable habits and what is his equipment in law, does he subscribe to the social philosophy and values enshrine in the Constitution, does he suffer from any insurmountable aberration, does he disclose a capacity to persuade and be persuaded and he a quick quick grasp, a smart intellect a compassionate heart and whether he would have a team spirit. 3. 3. Enunciating these points, Sri Jha has drawn our attention to the averments made in various paragraphs of this writ application in order to point out that respondent No, 4, Chief Justice of Patna High Court or the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices, who recommended the appointment of respondent No. 1 had no materials either on record or had even personal knowledge based on objective considerations reached dispassionately by them and that: they had acted purely on their subjective consideration. Further, while making such recommendation either respondent No. 4 or the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices had not kept in mind the princles of law judicated by the Supreme Court in the case of S, P. Gupta (supra). In support of his argument several paragraphs from the said judgment have been referred to in this writ application and mentioned in order to establish that the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in such matters have not been carried. In other words, it was contended that the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline should be disclosed to the people which formed the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline and which weighed with them in recommending the said respondent No. 1 for the appointment as a High Court Judge. 4. Reliance has been placed on annexure 8 touching the integrity and professional honesty of respondent No. 1 while he functioned as a Government Counsel and on the said basis it was contended that if the same would have been considered by the recommending authority then, perhaps, such recommendation would not have been made. 5. Certain inferences have been drawn by the petitioner that the recommendation was made on misleading information supplied by respondent No. 9 regarding the professional calibre and competency of respondent No, 1 and further that there was no effective consultation and/or scrutiny in the light of adverse materials brought on record of this case Mr. Jha led emphasis on the fact that the recommendations have not been made after full, effective, real, substantial and meanigful consultation based on full and proper materials placed before the constitutional functionaries as per the guidelines laid down in paragraph 767 of the judgment rendered in the case of Sri S. P. Gupta V/s. Union of India (supra). Jha led emphasis on the fact that the recommendations have not been made after full, effective, real, substantial and meanigful consultation based on full and proper materials placed before the constitutional functionaries as per the guidelines laid down in paragraph 767 of the judgment rendered in the case of Sri S. P. Gupta V/s. Union of India (supra). It was also asserted that respondent No. 8 the Chief Minister/ Chief Ministers at the relevant point of time did not ascertain the qualities of respondent No. 1 as Government Pleader before recommending his name for appointment as a High Court Judge according to the spirit of the Constitution. Mr. Jha has further placed reliance on the several unanimous resolutions passed by the said Forum i.e.. All Indian Independent Lawyers Forum, which is an Organisation of some lawyers of the Ranchi Bar as some other Bars which came into being on 20-8-90. Several cause lists of the Court have been filed annexed with the record of this case in order to show that the Hon ble the Chief Justice (respondent No. 4) had neither any chance or any occasion to see the performance of the respondent No. 1 as a lawyer at Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and on the said basis it was contended that the Chief Justice concerned had no reason to recommend on the basis of those records and therefore the recommendation must have been made either on the basis of the previsous records created by the former Chief Justices or that respondent No. 4 the Chief Justice, might have been misled by some of the Hon ble Judges of this Court regarding the professional calibre and integrity of respondent No. 1 who was functioning as a lawyer of this Court. On these facts, we were also addressed by the learned Staned Standing Counsel and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India but without any counter-affidavit. 6. After considering the various documents as noticed above raised by the parties we feel that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not be making fishing enquiry into the conduct of any Judge. 6. After considering the various documents as noticed above raised by the parties we feel that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not be making fishing enquiry into the conduct of any Judge. We can also not investigate the facts by making fishing enquiry entering into the mind of the recommending authority as to what prevailed in the mind of the constitutional functionary forming the subject matter of their opinion regarding suitability of a candidate proposed to be recommended for such appointment of a High Court Judge. We find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is based on speculation, there being no foundational facts before us to call for certain papers which the petitioner wanted to be called. The merit of a person for such appointment as a High Court Judge is based on several considerations and unless there is something tangible against such a person we cannot proceed on mere speculation for holding that respondent No. 1 was not able to be recommended for such appointment as a High Court Judge. In this view we dismiss this application summarily. 7. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel appearing for the parties.