54 54. Now, we find from Pages 45, 46 and 47 of the paper book that the meetings for appointments of the Information Commissioners were convened in so far as Nashik is concerned on 26.5.2009, 30.6.2010, 12.7.2010 and 14.9.2010 and on all these dates, the meetings were deferred. The meeting ultimately took place on 6.10.2010 of which date, the minutes of the meeting have already been reproduced hereinabove. The meeting to select the Information Commissioner Aurangabad was held on 6,10.2010 and in that meeting itself, the decisions were taken with regard to the said posts for Nagpur and of the Chief Information Commissioner. It would further appear that for Nashik, there were as many as 29 Applicants, but except for the Applicant about, whom we have gathered the details from this O.A. itself, no details are there in respect of the 28 other candidates. It is also clear, however, that the Respondent No.4 was ultimately appointed for Nashik. We find from the record that the Respondent No.4 addressed a communication directly to the Chief Minister on 25,5.2009 whereunder he also submitted his Bio-data. At Page 63, there is a strong recommendation from the Deputy Chief Minister for the Respondent No.4, who commended him for his good performance and 9 0 utilize his services for public good. The Minist "“OS\ _- |55 Public Health and Family Welfare by her letter of 15% June, 2009 also recommended the said Respondent. 55. The Respondent No.3 Shri Patil applied to the Chief Secretary on 12.3.2010 and although he had addressed it to the Chief Secretary, he apparently handed it over to the Personal Secretary of the Deputy Chief Minister in Mantralaya on 234 March, 2010. 56. The Respondent No.5 made an application on 6.5.2009 to the Chief Minister and then again on 14.9.2010, he made another application to the Chief Minister for the post at Aurangabad, Mumbai or Nashik. 57. Very pertinently, there is a communication of 21st December, 2010 by way of reply under RTI to one Shri Dilip S. Patare in response to his query of 18.10.2010 whereby he was informed iriter-alia that for the post of Information Commissioner, Nashik, Aurangabad and Nagpur, 6, 4 and 2 applications respectively were received. ‘The details were annexed to the reply. But those details are not there in this O.A. It appears from the said response that at the time, there was vacancy at Nashik. The willingness of the candidates was called. But in due Looe56 course, for the vacancies arising afterwards, such willingness was not called. 58. The above discussion would make it very clear that the whole process was almost endless and:it was not clear as to by which date and to whom the applications were to. be presented. We are conscious of the fact that there should be some jelbow room; in the matter of appointments to the higher posts. But then, the whole thing cannot be stretched to such limits where anybody and anyone can apply at any point of time. There is no last date so to say. In fact, we have got the record of the Respondents 3, 4 & 5 only apart from the record of the Applicant and we find that during the periods separated by even months and a year, the applications were made again and again. In Para 4.2 of. the Affidavit-in-reply of Respondents 1 & 2 (Page 120 of the paper book), it is Clearly accepted that no applicatiofis were invited by. the State and “the State in his own wisdom has to formulate a Committee and recommend the name of the eligible persons to the Hon’ble Governor as envisaged in Right to Information Act, 2005”. This in our view is a little too much to accept. We have already observed that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the-said posts are administrative posts. They are publié posts so to’. .57 say, and therefore, all the constitutional provisions including Article 16 of the. Constitution are attracted. A golden thread that runs smoothly across the entire constitution — which inter-alia _ proscribes _ hostile discrimination is fully applicable, and therefore, the higher the posts and the higher the status of the selection committee, the more is the need to be transparent fair and just. They are free to device their procedure which must however be fair and just. We must make it very clear that the Applicant does not challenge the appointments on any specific ground as such. In fact, he himself may be sailing the same boat as were the selected Respondents, and therefore, whatever the Applicant might say in the ultimate analysis we need not necessarily accept his case for appointment to Nashik. Mr. Chandratre, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents 3 & 4 was in a way right in contending that whatever the Applicant might say, he was in fact considered for the said post. That was his right. ‘He can claim no right to be selected. But all that we cannot ignore, the procedure adopted to make selections which must engage our attention because the Applicant has put question marks thereon. Whether he himself succeeds or not in.the.matter of appointment is a different matter. But, \ be in accordance ENC ‘procedure itself must be found to ional mandate and58 requirement. At this stage itself, we may mention that they did not entirely meet therewith. 59. We have already observed as to how the place of submission of applications was not something that should win instant approval. The Deputy Chief Minister as the things were to reveal in due course was a member of the Selection Committee and the Applicants (Respondents as discussed hereinabove) submitted applications in the office of the Dy. Chief Minister and he hailed the said Applicant for his quality of head, heart and mind. This should ultimately amount to saying that he recommended the case of that Applicant to himself because he was a part of the Selection Committee. No doubt, a judicial forum does not have to indulge in pointless and directionless nit picking, but then this, in our view, is not an infirmity that should not be seriously viewed. The precise Rules and Regulations that are observed in relation to the appointments to other regular public services may not be followed strictly in case of such exclusive and higher posts. But then, to have a kind of an open field and a free for all like situation and the process having been kept open ended for long are also not something that can be countenanced. We must repeat times out of number that even if thefe may not be a Public Service Commission like schedule, but