Politician Not Disabled From Being Appointed As State Food Commission Chairman: Patna High Court

The PIL was filed by the Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life, which sought to challenge Vikal's appointment on the grounds of his political background and alleged lack of expertise in matters concerning food and nutrition.

The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran And Justice Partha Sarthy observed, “The decisions cited at the Bar, according to us, do not vitiate the appointment of the 8th Respondent [Vidyanand Vikal], who has wide experience in public affairs and dealing with the down trodden and the marginalised people among the citizenry...We also have to notice that it is the politician who works among the masses and are often chosen by the citizenry to be their representatives in the Legislature and the Parliament; giving them the authority to govern this land. There can be no disability found on a politician, especially going by the qualifications required for the appointment of the Chairperson of the instant Commission.”

​​The court noted that a Selection Committee was formed in 2017, with ex officio members including the Minister of the Food & Consumer Protection Department and the Principal Secretaries of the Food & Consumer Protection Department and the Co-operative Department.

The court further noted that the position of Chairman became vacant after the previous Chairman's passing on June 19, 2019. In response, recommendations were sought from various departments to fill the vacancy. Based on the recommendations from the Selection Committee, a notification was issued appointing Vidyanand Vikal as the Chairman of the Bihar State Food Commission in accordance with Section 7 of the Bihar State Food Commission Rule, 2014.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Vikal's appointment is in conflict with Section 16(3) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and Rule 5 of the Bihar State Food Commission Rules, 2014. It was further submitted that Vikal was a politician, and thus did not qualify to be appointed to the post which requires some expertise and experience in the matter of providing for food and nutrition to the downtrodden. It was pointed out by the counsel that Vikal's bio-data was received even before the selection commenced, and there was no person in consideration other than him.

Responding to these claims, the Government Advocate countered that Vikal possessed substantial experience in public affairs, having served as the Chairman of the Scheduled Caste Commission of Bihar. The appointment process involved a Selection Committee that considered recommendations from various departments, which were ultimately unfruitful. The court noted that the appointment followed statutory guidelines.

The court acknowledged that there were no recommendations put forth by various government departments, but it still concluded that Vidyanand Vikal's appointment was valid.

Subsequently, the court expounded on the stipulated qualifications for assuming the role of Chairman of the Commission, as outlined in the National Food Security Act of 2013.

The court asserted, “This Court fully agrees with the submission of the Government Advocate that it is not proper for the petitioner to categorise the 8th Respondent as a politician and thus, for that reason alone, deem him to be disabled from being appointed as the Commission.”

The court took note of Vidyanand Vikal's experience in social work, human rights, and his previous position as Chairman of the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Commission, as indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the State. The court also highlighted Vikal's extensive experience in social work and public affairs, as mentioned in his bio-data.

Referring to the Apex Court's decision in Namita Sharma vs. Union of India;(2013) 1 SCC 745 which was was concerned with the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court noted that the Chief Information Commissioner and theInformation Commissioner under Section 12(5) and the State Commissioners under Section 15(5), were to be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

The Apex Court, therein, having considered the issue raised, had held that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to InformationAct, 2005 are constitutionally valid, but, however, only by reading into the expression ‘knowledge and experience’, to mean and include a basic degree in the respective field and the experience gained thereafter. The said decision, however, was reviewed in Union of India v. Namita Sharma; (2013) 10 SCC 359 and the provisions were held to be constitutionally valid without the rider.

In evaluating the selection process, the court noted that the State's response explicitly referred to the absence of recommendations from various departments. The court clarified that the mere existence of Vidyanand Vikal's bio-data within the Department before the recommendation process did not disqualify him.

The Court observed, “The Selection Committee itself was constituted in 2017 and it has ex officio members. The existing Chairperson expired and there was a vacancy in the Commission. The fact that a bio-data was forwarded by the 8th Respondent to the concerned Department, does not necessarily bring forth any illegality.”

“The fact that the only person in the selection was the 8 th Respondent was merely fortuitous and there is no mandate on the State to carry out public advertisement, especially when a Selection Committee was appointed which could device the method by which the search of suitable hands could be made and recommendations given to the Government. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the Public Interest Litigation and reject the same,” the Court concluded.