Himachal HC Asks State To Take Urgent Steps To Frame Guidelines & Parameters For Appointments To PSC [Read Judgment]

The bench of Chief Justice L. Narayana Swamy and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted that the Governor of the State has "implied powers" to lay down the procedure for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Commission.

The observations were made in a petition challenging the order of appointment of Ms. Meera Walia (Respondent No. 3) as Member of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The Petitioner had also prayed for directions to the State to frame guidelines for making appointments to the Public Service Commission.

Stating that the high court could not usurp the said "constitutional power" of the Government, the bench said,

"…the State Government and the Governor have a wide discretion in the procedure to be followed.

We hope and trust that the State of Himachal Pradesh must step in and take urgent steps to frame memorandum of procedure, administrative guidelines and parameters for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission, so that the possibility of arbitrary appointments is eliminated."

The challenge to Ms. Walia's appointment also failed for material suppression of facts by the Petitioner. The court noted that even while the Petitioner had produced a copy of the FIR alleging that Ms. Walia had criminal antecedents, he did not disclose as to how he got the said papers.

"…it is presumed that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts with further presumption that the petitioner has been made to use by some interested persons against respondent No. 3," the court said.

Moreover, the court observed that the Petitioner had singled out Ms. Walia's appointment and had not challenged the appointment of other persons, who were appointed as Chairman and Members by adopting the same procedure, thus strengthening the presumption.

"The petitioner has also extracted the provisions of Articles 316 and 317 of the Constitution of India which show that the petitioner is/was aware about the procedure to be adopted by the Constitutional Machinery and also aware of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point. Still he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3 which shows that he is having ill will against respondent No. 3 or has been used by some interested person against respondent No.3," the court said.

The Petitioner had approached the court stating that Ms. Walia's appointment was made without undertaking a "deliberative process". Further, it was alleged that the decision to appoint her as a Member was taken only by the Chief Minister and not by State Government, thus overlooking the requirements prescribed under Article 316 of the Constitution.

Case Details:

Case Title: Hem Raj v. State of HP & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 1871/2017

Quorum: Chief Justice L. Narayana Swamy & Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Appearance: Senior Advocate Rajnish Maniktala with Advocate Naresh Verma (for Petitioner); Advocate General Ashok Sharma with M/s JK Verma, Additional Advocates General Adarsh Sharma and Ritta Goswami, Law Officer Rajat Chauhan (for Union of India); Advocates DK Khanna and Deven Khanna (for Respondent No. 2); Senior Advocate Satyen Vaidya with Advocate Vivek Sharma (for Private Respondent No. 3)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment