Can't Create "Bogey Of Mistrust" In Selection Process: Himachal Pradesh High Court Junks Plea Seeking Video Recording Of Interviews By HPPSC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by an NGO seeking mandatory videography of the interviews conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) and other recruitment agencies in the State. “..One should not start with a premise that something untoward is being done / is going to be done in every selection process; and unnecessarily, one...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by an NGO seeking mandatory videography of the interviews conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) and other recruitment agencies in the State.
“..One should not start with a premise that something untoward is being done / is going to be done in every selection process; and unnecessarily, one cannot create a bogey of mistrust in the public in that regard and make them lose confidence in the selection being made by the respondents”, Chief Justice M.S Ramachandra Rao & Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed.
The petitioner had urged the court to direct the respondents, including the HPPSC and other universities and commissions, to conduct video recordings of all selection processes in line with a Supreme Court judgment titled "State of Meghalaya Versus Chikirbha.". Additionally, they sought the formulation of rules and guidelines for conducting video recordings of both tests and interviews.
The primary contention of the petitioner was the alleged unfairness in the selection procedures conducted by the respondents. They asserted that Article 14 of the Constitution mandates appointments to be conducted freely, fairly, and transparently, without any malicious motives and cited instances where controversies surrounded recruitments made by certain recruitment agencies in the State.
State on the other hand submitted that the Supreme Court had indeed highlighted the desirability of certain steps, as mentioned in the Phikirbha judgment, to ensure transparency in the selection process. However, the final decision on implementing these steps was left to the agencies conducting the selections, with the HPPSC being a constitutional body entrusted with its responsibilities.
Regarding video recording, the State government informed the court that the HPPSC had requested funds for installing CCTV cameras at examination centres and agreed, in principle, to videograph all examination centres. However, it said the government could not advise the HPPSC on videography of personal interviews due to the Commission's autonomy under Article 320 of the Constitution.
The HPPSC, in its reply, expressed reservations about video recording interviews. It also raised concerns about confidentiality, arguing that interaction and discussions between the interview panel and candidates were of a sensitive nature. Making the content of interviews public could compromise the sanctity of the process and potentially lead to unnecessary litigation, it argued.
Furthermore, the HPPSC contended that the constitutional provisions did not provide for supervision of its work, and constituting an independent committee to review the interview process through videography might affect its independence as a constitutional authority. It also highlighted the risk of compromising the identity of the subject panel, leading to potential inducement, threats, or undue influence on the panel's decision-making process.
The bench thoroughly considered the contentions raised by all parties, and acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in its order in the State of Meghalaya (supra) considered that for the purity of selection to public post, it was desirable that as far as possible selection process conducted by selection bodies be videographed.
However, the bench clarified that the Supreme Court in the said order had left it to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Personnel, and other State and Central Agencies to consider the desirability of adopting this approach; and has refrained from issuing a Writ of mandamus for implementation of the same.
“Therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner that the Supreme Court had held that the recruitment agencies must conduct video recording at the time of conducting the tests as well as at the time of interviews, cannot be countenanced because such a mandatory direction is not contained in the said judgment”, the bench maintained.
Finding merit in the contention raised by the HPPSC with regard to its constitutional authority, the bench recorded,
“…Having regard to the constitutional position enjoyed by the State Public Service Commission, and also the fact that the selection committee is usually constituted by the other respondents in accordance with the relevant Statutes and Regulations/Rules, we are of the view that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents in matters of this nature”.
Additionally, the court noted that the State Government had already taken steps to discontinue interviews for Class-III and Class-IV posts, aligning with the petitioner's concerns. “Therefore, in our opinion, no relief can be granted at the instance of the petitioner for issuance of Writ of mandamus to the respondents to videograph the interview process in the selections being conducted by the respondents”, the bench concluded while dismissing the plea.
Case Title: People for Responsible Governance Vs State of HP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 54