Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the High Court and the counsel for the State and Union of India, on the contrary, have raised a preliminary objection at the very outset. It is submitted that the petitioner being himself an aspirant to compete the examination has a personal interest in the Writ proceedings. Thus, under the garb of public interest, the petitioner has attempted nothing, but to espouse his own cause, which may not be permissible in a proceeding titled as Public Interest Litigation. It is further pointed out that sub-Article (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India is not to be read in isolation, but is to be construed in conjunction with sub-Article (1) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India so as to ascertain the true import of law. A holistic view of the constitutional provisions once understood in the right perspective makes the role of the High Court relevant to justify the consultation and recommendations. Thus, the grounds questioning the validity of the rule making authority on the premise set out in the writ petition lack the legal sanctity. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are thus disputed to be misconceived.
