A Division Bench has dismissed with Rs 1 lakh costs a PIL for recalling the recommendation to appoint Pravindra Chauhan as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.Senior advocate Chauhan is currently functioning as Haryana Advocate-General.“The process (of appointing High Court Judges) itself is exhaustive, and it would not be open to ordinarily question the recommendations made therein, particularly when the challenge is laid by a person who approaches the court with a personal axe to grind,” the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor ruled.The Bench asserted the petitioner must have credentials beyond question, when an appointment to a high constitutional office is challenged through a PIL. “During the course of hearing, we sought to impress upon counsel for the petitioner that a PIL petition challenging an appointment to a high Constitutional office must be instituted by a person whose credentials are beyond question. Accordingly, whether such a petition ought to be pursued, requires careful deliberation.”The Bench further held that the exercise of jurisdiction by a Writ Court was required to be based on appreciation of facts placed on record, when an appointment to a high Constitutional office was questioned. “It cannot be at the mere asking of the petitioner that the process of such appointment needs to be questioned or examined by this court.”Court details multi-stage judicial appointment processThe Bench noted that the appointment process for a High Court Judge began with the High Court Collegium comprising the Chief Justice and two senior Judges. The proposal then went to the State government, where various inputs from intelligence agencies were provided, followed by the State government’s recommendation. It was thereafter sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice, where intelligence inputs were again collected and reports were obtained from relevant quarters before the matter was placed before the Supreme Court Collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most Judges.Earlier PIL and petitioner’s circumstances consideredThe court noted that a PIL filed earlier by the same petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto to challenge his appointment as Advocate-General had been dismissed by the High Court. The Bench added that the petitioner did not dispute the fact, but urged is that an application for recall was “intended to be filed against the dismissal order”.“The factual assertions made in the previous PIL petition, wherein the petitioner had alleged harassment at the hands of “private respondent” during his employment with the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, are also not in dispute,” the Bench added.The court further observed it was also not in dispute that the petitioner was Regulatory Commission employee, when the “private respondent” was a member judicial of the same Commission. “Some proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which resulted in an order of discharge being passed against him. It is, therefore, quite obvious that petitioner has personal grievances against the private respondent,” the Bench added.Dismissing the petition, the Bench added the PIL petition had not been instituted in genuine public interest. “The filing of successive PIL petitions, firstly for quo warranto and then the instant PIL petition by someone who has a grudge and grievance against private respondent would not be entertained. Such attempts must be thwarted at very outset,” the Bench added.