<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a PIL challenging the appointment of Bihar Public Service Commission chairperson Parmar Ravi Manubhai after observing that an FIR against him was closed.</p>.<p>The top court, however, was critical of PIL and asked the petitioner not to file such bereft of facts petitions.</p>.<p>“If you are filing a PIL then you have to give your life to it. Please do not go behind this publicity business, it will ruin you… you should have read the facts properly,” a bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said.</p>.<p>After it was informed about an FIR against Manubhai, the bench asked, “What happened to the FIR?" “It was closed,” the lawyer said.</p>.Supreme Court to hear plea seeking intervention to save Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen on July 14.<p>The bench, after hearing the counsel for the state government and the BPSC chairperson, held the PIL ought to be rejected.</p>.<p>The bench initially imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on petitioner Brajesh Singh.</p>.<p>It later removed the cost part from the order after considering the petitioner's apology.</p>.<p>The top court on February 3 sought the response of the Bihar government and Manubhai on the plea.</p>.<p>The bench had appointed advocate Vanshaja Shukla as an amicus curiae in the matter.</p>.<p>The plea challenged the appointment made on March 15, 2024, saying it was against the constitutional mandate of appointing only those with an "impeccable character" as the chairperson or member of public service commissions.</p>.<p>Parmar, the PIL said, was an accused in the alleged corruption case registered by Bihar’s vigilance bureau and the matter was pending before a special judge in Patna.</p>.<p>"Thus apparently, respondent number 2 (Parmar) is facing serious charges of committing the offence of corruption and forgery and as such his integrity is doubtful and therefore, he ought not to have been appointed as the chairman of BPSC," the petition had said.</p>.<p>It claimed that Parmar did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria for being appointed to the constitutional post of chairperson as he was not a person with an impeccable character. </p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a PIL challenging the appointment of Bihar Public Service Commission chairperson Parmar Ravi Manubhai after observing that an FIR against him was closed.</p>.<p>The top court, however, was critical of PIL and asked the petitioner not to file such bereft of facts petitions.</p>.<p>“If you are filing a PIL then you have to give your life to it. Please do not go behind this publicity business, it will ruin you… you should have read the facts properly,” a bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said.</p>.<p>After it was informed about an FIR against Manubhai, the bench asked, “What happened to the FIR?" “It was closed,” the lawyer said.</p>.Supreme Court to hear plea seeking intervention to save Kerala nurse on death row in Yemen on July 14.<p>The bench, after hearing the counsel for the state government and the BPSC chairperson, held the PIL ought to be rejected.</p>.<p>The bench initially imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on petitioner Brajesh Singh.</p>.<p>It later removed the cost part from the order after considering the petitioner's apology.</p>.<p>The top court on February 3 sought the response of the Bihar government and Manubhai on the plea.</p>.<p>The bench had appointed advocate Vanshaja Shukla as an amicus curiae in the matter.</p>.<p>The plea challenged the appointment made on March 15, 2024, saying it was against the constitutional mandate of appointing only those with an "impeccable character" as the chairperson or member of public service commissions.</p>.<p>Parmar, the PIL said, was an accused in the alleged corruption case registered by Bihar’s vigilance bureau and the matter was pending before a special judge in Patna.</p>.<p>"Thus apparently, respondent number 2 (Parmar) is facing serious charges of committing the offence of corruption and forgery and as such his integrity is doubtful and therefore, he ought not to have been appointed as the chairman of BPSC," the petition had said.</p>.<p>It claimed that Parmar did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria for being appointed to the constitutional post of chairperson as he was not a person with an impeccable character. </p>