2013 (2) TMI 772 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether even though Article 316 of the Constitution does not prescribe any particular procedure for appointment of Chairman of the Public Service Commission, having regard to the purpose and nature of the appointment, it cannot be assumed that the power of appointment of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission need not be regulated by any procedure?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can lay down the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and quash his appointment.
2. Whether the writ petition filed was a service matter and could be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation.
3. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court should have made an academic reference to the Full Bench.
4. Whether the Full Bench exceeded its jurisdiction by enlarging the scope of reference.
5. Whether the High Court can direct the Government to exercise its discretion by following a procedure prescribed by the High Court.
6. Whether the High Court could issue a writ for quashing the appointment of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
7. Whether the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission was valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. High Court's Authority to Lay Down Procedure and Quash Appointment:
The Supreme Court had to determine if the High Court, under Article 226, could prescribe the procedure for appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and annul the appointment. The High Court had laid down a detailed procedure for such appointments, including the formation of a Search Committee and a High Powered Committee to ensure transparency and merit-based selection. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing such directions, as it is the prerogative of the Governor under Article 316 of the Constitution to appoint the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission. The Court emphasized that while the High Court can ensure the decision-making process is fair, it cannot prescribe the procedure itself.

2. Nature of the Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court examined whether the writ petition was a service matter and thus not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court concluded that the appointment of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is not a typical service matter but a constitutional appointment. Therefore, it could be challenged through a PIL, especially given the significant public interest in ensuring that such appointments are made transparently and based on merit.

3. Reference to the Full Bench:
The Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to a Full Bench to address the procedure for appointing the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the Division Bench was correct in seeking a larger bench's opinion on the procedural aspects and the validity of the appointment process.

4. Jurisdiction of the Full Bench:
The Supreme Court found that the Full Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by expanding the scope of the reference. The Division Bench had referred specific questions regarding the procedure for identifying and selecting competent and integrity-based candidates. However, the Full Bench went beyond these questions and laid down a detailed procedure for future appointments, which was beyond its mandate.

5. High Court's Direction to the Government:
The Supreme Court held that while the High Court can review the decision-making process to ensure it is fair and transparent, it cannot direct the Government to follow a specific procedure prescribed by the Court. The discretion to lay down the procedure for such appointments lies with the Governor, as per the Constitution.

6. High Court's Power to Quash Appointments:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court has the power to quash appointments if the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, the High Court's decision to quash Mr. Harish Dhanda's appointment was upheld due to the lack of a proper deliberative process and the failure to consider relevant factors.

7. Validity of Mr. Harish Dhanda's Appointment:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the materials and the process leading to Mr. Dhanda's appointment. It found that the decision-making process was flawed as it did not adequately consider Mr. Dhanda's qualifications, experience, and integrity. The Court noted that the appointment was made in haste without a thorough and meticulous inquiry into Mr. Dhanda's suitability for the position, leading to the conclusion that the appointment was invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court that laid down the procedure for future appointments but upheld the decision to quash Mr. Dhanda's appointment. The Court directed the State Government to frame appropriate guidelines for such appointments to ensure transparency and merit-based selection in the future. The appeals of the State of Punjab and Haryana were partly allowed, while Mr. Harish Dhanda's appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →