JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the decision dated 16.3.2015, vide Annxure-5, of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment to the post of State Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as “the SCPD”) and the decision of the State Government dated 6.4.2015, vide Annexure-6, appointing opposite party no.3 as SCPD. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Government of Orissa for selection to the post of SCPD, twenty one applications were received including the petitioner and the opposite party no.3. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He has devoted the entire life for upliftment and welfare of the physically handicapped persons. He has nearly 30 years of experience in the field of upliftment of the persons with disability. He has fulfilled the eligibility criteria and most qualified candidate. But then, his case was ignored. It is further stated that opposite party no.3 does not fulfil the requisite criteria. She has not worked for more than fifteen years in any of the organisations and, as such, she is not eligible to be considered for the post of SCPD. She did not have three years experience in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities. The Search-cum-Selection Committee by order dated 16.3.2015 had prepared a panel of three applicants including the opposite party no.3. The case of the petitioner had been ignored. On the contrary the name of opposite party no.3 found place in the panel. Subsequently, the State Government by order dated 6.4.2015 appointed opposite party no.3 as SCPD without assigning any reason. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that an advertisement was issued on 14.11.2014 inviting applications from the qualified and experienced persons for the post of SCPD. In response to the same, twenty one persons including the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 offered their candidature. The Search-cum-Selection Committee, notified by the State Government on 20.12.2014, after examination of all the twenty one applications recommended a panel of three suitable candidates including the name of opposite party no.3 for the post of SCPD. In response to the same, twenty one persons including the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 offered their candidature. The Search-cum-Selection Committee, notified by the State Government on 20.12.2014, after examination of all the twenty one applications recommended a panel of three suitable candidates including the name of opposite party no.3 for the post of SCPD. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the panel of three candidates recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The State Government appointed opposite party no.3, who assumed charge of the office of SCPD in the afternoon of 7.4.2015, vide Annexure-B/1. It is further stated that opposite party no.3 has been appointed as SCPD by following the provisions laid down in Section 60 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Rules 49(B), 49(C) and 49(D) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Amendment Odisha Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). There was no illegality or arbitrariness in taking the decision for appointment of opposite party no.3 as SCPD. Opposite party no.3 fulfilled all the eligibility criteria laid down under the provisions of the Act and Rules. She is a Post Graduate and has passed the Law. She has been awarded Ph.D by the Utkal University. She possessed fifteen years of experience in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities as required under the Rules. She was a Zilla Parisad Member of Jagatsinghpur District from 1997 and in that capacity, she engaged herself in social development work. She is the Joint Secretary of Utkal Smruti Kala Mandap at Cuttack from 2000. The said organisation is engaged in the field of social development. Besides, she has experience in other fields also as a Member of Odisha Social Welfare Board and the Orissa Scheduled Caste Welfare Advisory Board. She is associated with Maa Bauti School for Deaf since 2004, Shree Beleswar High School for Deaf since 2009 and contributed to empowerment of persons with hearing impaired. She is also associated with Nayagarh Kala Parisad since 2004. The claim of the petitioner that he is a most qualified and experienced person out of all the applicants is a self-glorification. It is not a competition of any civil post. The SCPD is a statutory post. She is also associated with Nayagarh Kala Parisad since 2004. The claim of the petitioner that he is a most qualified and experienced person out of all the applicants is a self-glorification. It is not a competition of any civil post. The SCPD is a statutory post. The Government can choose any one from the panel of selected three candidates for the post of SCPD. The Government is neither required to assign any reason for final selection and appointment of SCPD nor the Rules provide for the same. Since opposite party no.3 has fulfilled all the requisite criteria and was in the panel of three candidates recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the Government selected opposite party no.3 for the post of SCPD from amongst the candidates recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. 4. Opposite party no.3 has also filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that pursuant to the notification issued by the Government on 14.11.2014, she applied for the post of SCPD. She has passed B.A with Political Science and Odia (Hons), M.A in Odia and LL.B. She has been awarded Ph.D in Odia. She was elected as a Member of Jagatsinghpur Zilla Parishad from 1997 to 2002 and in that capacity, she was fully associated with social development activities in social sector. She was engaged as an advocate on 13.5.2000. She is the Joint Secretary of Utkal Smruti Kala Mandap, an organisation engaged in advancement of dance and music. She is a Member of Nayagarh Kala Parishad engaged in maintaining an orphanage, namely, Mother Abasika Vidyalaya. She has special knowledge in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation of persons with disability. She is closely associated with Maa Bauti School for the Deaf and Shree Beleswar High School for the Deaf as an advisor since 2004 and 2009. Besides, being associated with such special schools, she has also practical knowledge on rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. She was a member of Odisha Social Welfare Board since 2013 and Odsha Scheduled Caste Welfare Advisory Board since August, 2014. She fulfils all the eligibility criteria. The Search-cum-Selection Committee recommended the names of three persons including her. Finally, the State Government appointed her as SCPD. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the assertions made in the counter affidavits. 6. Heard Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. She fulfils all the eligibility criteria. The Search-cum-Selection Committee recommended the names of three persons including her. Finally, the State Government appointed her as SCPD. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the assertions made in the counter affidavits. 6. Heard Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. D. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Advocate General along with Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3. 7. Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He has devoted his entire life for the welfare of the physically handicapped person. He has nearly 30 years of experience for the betterment of physically handicapped persons and upliftment of the persons with the disability. He is a renowned figure in the arena of social/upliftment/welfare/empowerment of physically disabled persons not only in the State of Orissa, but also in the country. He has received many laurels. He fulfils all the eligibility criteria for the post of SCPD inasmuch as he is a most qualified person. But then, his case was ignored by the Government in a lackadaisical manner. He argued with vehemence that the opposite party no.3 is not at all eligible for the post of SCPD. She did not have 15 years experience. She does not possess three years of recent experience in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities. Further, the State Government have not assigned any reason while selecting opposite party no.3 in the post of SCPD. According to him, if a statutory body while making recommendation fails to look into the relevant materials having to the object and purpose of the Act or taken into account the irrelevant circumstances, its decision would stand vitiated on the ground of official arbitrariness. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Centre for PIL and another v. Union of India and another, (2011) 4 SCC 1 . 8. Per contra, learned Advocate General submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Government, twenty one applications were received. The Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted for the purpose after scrutinizing the applications, recommended the names of three persons including opposite party no.3. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate General submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Government, twenty one applications were received. The Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted for the purpose after scrutinizing the applications, recommended the names of three persons including opposite party no.3. Thereafter, the State Government appointed opposite party no.3, who assumed charge of the office of the SCPD in the afternoon of 7.4.2015. Three months thereafter, the writ petition was filed. After lapse of ten months, the interim order was passed by this Court granting stay operation of the impugned order dated 6.4.2015 appointing opposite party no.3 as SCPD. There is no whisper in the writ petition that opposite party no.3 has assumed office. He further submitted that opposite party no.3 has fulfilled the requisite criteria and any allegation to the contrary is baseless. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party no.3, submitted that the SCPD is a statutory post. The Search-cum-Selection Committee recommended the name of three persons including opposite party no.3, whereafter the State Government appointed opposite party no.3 as SCPD. He further submitted that opposite party no.3 has possessed the requisite criteria. Further, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list prepared by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. No right of the petitioner has been affected. Thus he cannot maintain the writ petition. He further submitted that the Court should be slow to interfere with the decision in the matter of selection unless mala fide is shown. To buttress the submission, he cited the decision of this Court in the case of Managing Committee of the Kelikadamba High School & others v. State of Orissa and others, 1979 ILR 504 and the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University and others, (1999) 1 SCC 453 , National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481, M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (2008) 2 SCC 119 and B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and others (2008) 14 SCC 306 . 10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the Bar, reference may be made to Section 60 of the Act, which reads thus: “60. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and others (2008) 14 SCC 306 . 10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the Bar, reference may be made to Section 60 of the Act, which reads thus: “60. Appointment of Commissioners for persons with disabilities – (1) Every State Government may, by notification, appoint a Commissioner for persons with disabilities for the purposes of this Act. (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Commissioner unless he has special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation. (3) The salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service (including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits) of the Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. (4) The State Government shall determine the nature and categories of officers and other employees required to assist the Commissioner in the discharge of his functions and provide the Commissioner with such officers and other employees as it thinks fit. (5) The officers and employees provided to the Commissioner shall discharge their functions under the general superintendence of the Commissioner. (6) The salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of officers and employees provided to the Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.” 11. Rule 49 of the Rule, 2003 deals with appointment of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The said Rule had undergone amendment on 22.6.2012, whereafter Rule 49-B had been inserted. Rule 49-B of the Rule deals with qualifications for appointment of the Commissioner. The same is quoted below. “49-B. Qualifications for appointment of Commissioner : (1) In order to be eligible for appointment as Commissioner, a person must – (i) be below sixty years of age as on the 1st day of January of the year in which the last date for receipt of application falls; (ii) posses the following educational qualification and experience, namely :- (a) Graduate from a recognised University; (b) Recognised Degree/Diploma in Social Work/Law/Management/Human Rights/Rehabilitation of Disabled Person/Education of Disabled Persons; (iii) seek retirement if he/she is in service under the Central Government or State Government before appointment to the post; and (iv) have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. (2) He/she must have minimum 25 (twenty-five) years of experience in one or more of the following types of organisations at specified levels, namely :- (a) In a Group 'A' level post in Central/State Government/Public Sector Undertaking/Semi-Government or Autonomous Bodies dealing with disability related matters and/or Social Sector (Health/Education/Poverty Alleviation/Women and Child Development); or (b) A senior level functionary in a registered national or international level voluntary organisation working in the field of disability/social development; or (c) Senior Executive position in a leading Government/Public/Private Sector organisation involved in social work and in-charge of handling social development activities of the organisation : Provided that out of the total twenty-five years experience, at least three years of experience in the recent past have been in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities.” 12. Rule 49-B was again amended in the year 2013. In sub-rule (2) of Rule 49-B, instead of 25 years of experience, 15 years was inserted. Similarly, in clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 49-B, instead of the words “National or International”, the words “State and District” were inserted. 13. A bare reading of Rule 49-B makes it clear that a person in order to be eligible for appointment as Commissioner must be below sixty years of age as on 1st day of January of the year in which the last date of application falls; must posses the educational qualification and experience enumerated in clause (ii) of Rule 49-B of the Rules; must seek retirement if he/she is in service under the Central Government or State Government before appointment to the post; and must have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. He must have at least 15 years of experience in one or more of the organisations as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 49-B of the Rules. 14. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 49-B provides that he/she must have 15 years of experience in one or more types of organisations mentioned in clause (a) to (c). Clause (b) provides that a senior level functionary in a registered State and District level voluntary organisation working in the field of disability/social development. Clause (c) provides that senior executive position in a leading Government/Public/Private Sector organisation involved in social work and in-charge of handling social development activities of the organisation. 15. Clause (b) provides that a senior level functionary in a registered State and District level voluntary organisation working in the field of disability/social development. Clause (c) provides that senior executive position in a leading Government/Public/Private Sector organisation involved in social work and in-charge of handling social development activities of the organisation. 15. The word ‘executive’ is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edn.) at 522 as : “Capable of performance; operative; active in execution; energetic; apt or skilful in execution; pertaining to execution; having the function of executing or carrying into practical effect; esp. as the distinctive epithet of that branch of the government which is concerned or charged with carrying out the laws, decrees, and judicial sentences; opposed to ‘judicial’ and ‘legislative’; That branch of the government which is charged with the execution of the laws; The person or persons in whom the supreme executive magistracy of a country or state is vested; Any administrative body; A person holding an executive position in a business organisation; a person skilled in executive or administrative work; a business man.” The word ‘executive’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edn.) at 690 as : “The branch of government responsible for effecting and enforcing laws; the person or persons who constitute this branch.” The word ‘executive’ is defined in Corpus Juris Secundum (33th Edn.) at 847 as : “One whose duties relate to active participation in control, supervision and management of a business, defined generally as a person charged with administrative or executive work; and, more specifically, as one employed in an executive capacity, that is, one whose primary duty is the management of an establishment, or a recognized department thereof, who directs the work of others, has authority to hire and discharge, promote, or change the status of, such others, or whose recommendations and suggestions with regard thereto are given particular weight, and who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary power, being thus contrasted with, or distinguished from, “employee” as designating the person, such as the governor or president, or the governmental department, charged with the duty of carrying out or enforcing the laws.” According to The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edn. p.265), the word ‘functionary’ means : “One invested with a function; one who has certain functions or duties to perform; an official.” According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edn. p.265), the word ‘functionary’ means : “One invested with a function; one who has certain functions or duties to perform; an official.” According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edn. p. 787), the word ‘functionary’ means : “A public officer or employee; esp., one whose job involves unimportant or mundane duties.” According to the Corpus Juris Secundum (37th Edn. p.1401), the word ‘functionary’ means : “A public officer or employee, although an officer of a private corporation is also sometimes so called.” 16. The words ‘executive’ and ‘functionary’ are capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things. Thus the same are to be construed not in isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. Thus the words ‘executive’ and ‘functionary’ appearing in clause (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 49-B of the Rules cannot be cabined, cribbed or confined so as to mean a particular organisation. The name of a person working as a senior level functionary in a registered State Level Organisation working in the field of disability or social development can be taken into consideration provided he/she fulfils the eligibility criteria. Similarly, the case of the person functioning as a Senior Executive in a leading Government/Public/Private Sector organisation involved in social work and in-charge of handling social development activities of the organisation can also be taken into consideration. 17. In the bio-data, the petitioner has made a reference to the various organisations where she is actively associated. Opposite party no.3 has passed B.A. in Odiya (Hons.) in 1993, M.A in Odiya in 1995 and LL.B in 1999. She was awarded Ph.D in Odiya in 2003. She is a Member of Social Welfare Board since 8.8.2013, Member, State Advisory Committee, OERC since 12.5.2010, Legal Advisor, Maa Bauti School for the Deaf since 17.3.2004, Advisor, Shree Beleswar High School for the Deaf from 2.4.2009, Social Worker Nayagarh Kala Parishad from 2004, Ex-Zilla Parishad Member, Tirtol Zone No.3, Jagatsinghpur from 1997 to 2002, Ex-Member of the Board of Control, Women and Child Development Department, Odisha since 13.2.2006-2009, Ex-Coop. Member, Grievance Redressal Forum, CESU, Dhenkanal from 18.6.2010 to 18.6.2013, Ex-Member, State Consumer Protection Council, Odisha, 2010-2013 and Joint Secretary, Utkal Smruti Kala Manadap, Dolamundai, Cuttack from 2000. Member, Grievance Redressal Forum, CESU, Dhenkanal from 18.6.2010 to 18.6.2013, Ex-Member, State Consumer Protection Council, Odisha, 2010-2013 and Joint Secretary, Utkal Smruti Kala Manadap, Dolamundai, Cuttack from 2000. According to opposite party no.3, she is a Member of Nayagarh Kala Parishad engaged in maintaining an Orphanage, namely, Mother Abasika Vidyalaya. She has special knowledge in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation of persons with disability. She is closely associated with Maa Bauti School for the Deaf and Shree Beleswar High School for the Deaf. She has practical knowledge on rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and member of Odisha Social Welfare Board. 18. Be it noted that clause (b) postulates that a senior level functionary in a registered State and District level voluntary organisation working in the field of disability/social development. Thus a person, in order to be eligible, must have 15 years of experience in any of the organisation working in the field of disability/social development. The experience of a person working in the senior level functionary in a registered State voluntary organisation working in the field of disability/social development can also be taken into consideration apart from disability. The Zilla Parishad is constituted under the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act. A member elected to the Zilla Parishad is engaged in social development. An organisation engaged in advancement of dance and music and maintaining an orphanage is also engaged in social development. Similarly, the Member of the State Advisory Committee, OERC, State Consumer Protection Council, Member of Grievance Redressal Forum, Member, Social Welfare Board and Member, Scheduled Caste Welfare Advisory Board, Orissa is engaged in social development. The proviso to sub-rule (2) stipulates that out of the total fifteen years experience, at least three years of experience in the recent past have been in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities. The experience of the opposite party no.3 as an advisor for the School for the Deaf can be taken into consideration in the field of empowerment of persons with disabilities. 19. The notification dated 20.12.2014, vide Annexure-B/3, shows that in order to recommend a panel of suitable persons for selection of SCPD, the Government have constituted the Search-cum-Selection Committee as per Rule 49(C)(2) of the Rules which consists of 1. Minister, Women & Child Development as Chairperson; 2. Minister of State (Disability Welfare) as Vice-Chairman; 3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary (H&FW Deptt.) as Member; 4. Commissioner-cum-Secretary (S&ME Deptt.) as Member; and 5. Minister, Women & Child Development as Chairperson; 2. Minister of State (Disability Welfare) as Vice-Chairman; 3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary (H&FW Deptt.) as Member; 4. Commissioner-cum-Secretary (S&ME Deptt.) as Member; and 5. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, W&C D Deptt. as Member Convenor. The five members Search-cum-Selection Committee scrutinized twenty one applications and taking into account the experience in the field of disability/social development so also the qualifications, recommended a panel of three candidates on 16.3.2015, vide Annexure-5. The name of opposite party no.3 finds place in the said list. Thereafter, the Chief Minister decided to appoint opposite party no.3. 20. In National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science v. Dr. Kalyana Raman and others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481, an advertisement was issued for the post of Professor in Neurology. Four candidates applied for the post. The Governing Body of NIMHANS constituted a selection committee. The selection committee after interview and assessment of relative merits of the candidates recommended a panel of names for appointment as Professor. Dr. Gauri Devi was placed first in the panel of names. The respondent was the second. Dr. Gauri Devi was eventually appointed as Professor. Her appointment was challenged by Dr. Kalyana Raman in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the writ petition. He challenged the same in the apex Court. The apex Court held that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates. There is no rule or regulation requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement, the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. Even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. It is further held that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The ‘fairness’ or ‘fair procedure’ in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 21. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The ‘fairness’ or ‘fair procedure’ in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 21. In M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others, (2008) 2 SCC 119 , the apex Court held that normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. 22. Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity) is a well known principle in the administration of justice. In view of the same, this Court has not multiplied the authorities since the ratio in all the decisions cited by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate is same. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Search-cum-Selection Committee while making recommendation fails to look into the relevant materials or had taken into account the irrelevant circumstances. Thus the decision cited by Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, in the case of Center for PIL v. Union of India is distinguishable. 23. The submission of Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, that the petitioner is the best suitable candidate for the post of SCPD is noted to be rejected. The Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted for the purpose recommended a penal of three names where the name of the petitioner did not find place. This Court is not an appellate authority over the assessment made by any authority. The same is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee. 24. Before parting with the case, this Court observes that the petitioner has not approached this Court with a pair of clean hands. The State Government have appointed opposite party no.3 as SCPD on 7.4.2015. This Court is not an appellate authority over the assessment made by any authority. The same is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee. 24. Before parting with the case, this Court observes that the petitioner has not approached this Court with a pair of clean hands. The State Government have appointed opposite party no.3 as SCPD on 7.4.2015. Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 shows that opposite party no.3 assumed charge of the office in the afternoon of 7.4.2015. Before filing of the writ petition, the petitioner made an application under the RTI Act to obtain the documents as would be evident from paragraph-6 of the writ petition. The opposite party no.3 was appointed on 7.4.2015. The writ petition was filed on 22.7.2015. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court when the matter was taken up on 2.2.2016 for which a Bench of this Court passed the interim stay operation of the order dated 6.4.2015 appointing opposite party no.3 as SCPD, vide Annexure-6. Office of the SCPD came to a standstill. The same amounts to suppression of facts. 25. On taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.