ORDER : 1. While deciding Writ Petition No.410 of 2012 and other connected cases decided on April 24, 2014, we had inter alia passed the following order : xxx xxx xxx “In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Respondent 2 is duly holding the office of Lokayukta, U.P. under a valid law enacted by the competent legislature viz the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 as amended by the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012. However, we direct the State to take all endeavours for selecting the new incumbent for the office of Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas as per the provisions of the Act preferably within a period of six months from today.” xxx xxx xxx 2. The period of six months with effect from 24th April, 2014 within which this Court had desired that the Lokayukta should be appointed is long over. 3. Alleging willful disobedience of the said directions of the Court Contempt Petition No.70 of 2015 was instituted before this Court which was disposed of on 23.07.2015 by observing as hereunder:- “The contempt petition is disposed of on the hope and expectation that the constitutional functionaries entrusted with the duty of making appointment of Lokayukta will finalize the matter and take their decision within a period of thirty days from today” 4. In the said order we had also observed that the above order of the Court should be brought to the notice of all the authorities concerned. 5. The hope and expectation of this Court expressed in the aforesaid order dated 23rd July, 2015 appears to be gone in vain and has not been heeded to by any of the constitutional functionaries associated with the process of appointment. In fact, in the above circumstances, another contempt petition being No.733 of 2015 has been filed before this Court wherein vide order dated 4.12.2015 the Court had issued notice. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed on 30th April, 2015 and notice thereon was issued on 2nd July, 2015. 6. In the aforesaid writ petition a prayer has been made for a writ or direction commmanding the State Government to immediately appoint a new incumbent as Lokayukta and dispense with the services of Justice N.K. Mehrotra (Retd.), the present Lokayukta. 6. In the aforesaid writ petition a prayer has been made for a writ or direction commmanding the State Government to immediately appoint a new incumbent as Lokayukta and dispense with the services of Justice N.K. Mehrotra (Retd.), the present Lokayukta. Apart from the above, there is a prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh and other consequential directions. No response to the notice issued by this Court as far as back on 2nd July, 2015 has been filed by any of the contesting parties including the Chief Secretary, though notice has been duly served. 7. After hearing the writ petition on 14th December, 2015, we had permitted the learned Advocate General of the State, who was present in the Court, to ensure that the situation is remedied and appropriate orders for appointment of the Lokayukta are passed on or before 16.12.2015 i.e. today. The same has also not been done. 8. The facts stated above would indicate that the initial order of this Court dated 24th April, 2014 and the subsequent order dated 23rd July, 2015 in Contempt Petition No.70 of 2015 has gone unheeded. The present is a case where the Court is confronted by the failure, if not the refusal of the constitutional functionaries, to comply with the repeated orders of the highest Court of the land. The matter is deeply regrettable and to say the least is astonishing. 9. We are informed by Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh that pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 14.12.2015, there has been prolonged meetings between the authorities responsible for making recommendations for appointment of the Lokayukta and that such meetings have stretched for five hours yesterday evening and meetings were held for two hours in the morning from 9.30 a.m. We remain unimpressed with the above assertions which are but an indication of the inability of the constitutional functionaries to come to a consensus. We are also told that out of five names discussed, the Chief Minister of the State and the leader of the opposition has agreed on three names whereas the Chief Justice of the High Court has not expressed his mind. There is none on behalf of the High Court to rebut the aforesaid position. We are also told that out of five names discussed, the Chief Minister of the State and the leader of the opposition has agreed on three names whereas the Chief Justice of the High Court has not expressed his mind. There is none on behalf of the High Court to rebut the aforesaid position. In the above circumstances and in order to give full effect to the orders of this Court passed from time to time, as noticed above, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virendra Singh (Retd.) be appointed as Lokyukta of State of Uttar Pradesh forthwith. The consequential order in this regard will be issued by the appropriate authority/functionary and an affidavit in compliance shall be filed in the Registry on or before 21st December, 2015. 10. The list of names discussed in the deliberations held as placed before us by Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, out of which we have made the appointment in question, be kept on record. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.