Supreme Court Asked Mizoram And Manipur To Consider Desirability Of Amending Recruitment Rules for State Pollution Control Boards
The Supreme Court, on Monday, closed the contempt petitions seeking implementation of a 2017 order of the Supreme Court directing all the State Governments to frame appropriate recruitment rules for Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) in terms of the reports of various committees and authorities (Bhattacharia Committee, Belliappa...
The Supreme Court, on Monday, closed the contempt petitions seeking implementation of a 2017 order of the Supreme Court directing all the State Governments to frame appropriate recruitment rules for Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) in terms of the reports of various committees and authorities (Bhattacharia Committee, Belliappa Committee, Administrative Staff College of India Study, Menon Committee and the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee), within six months, to ensure that suitable professionals and experts are appointed to the SPCBs.
During the course of the hearing, Senior Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, appearing on behalf of the contempt petitioners, submitted that the Supreme Court had directed the State Governments to frame the guidelines to ensure that the SPBCs are efficacious and vibrant bodies equipped to discharge duties bestowed upon them. However, he pointed out by way of example that the Rules framed by the State of Manipur and Mizoram in this regard are vague and general and allow recruitment and appointment of individuals who cannot be characterised as competent or experienced. Mr. Hegde asserted that induction of academics, professionals, experts and technologists is essential for efficient functioning of the SPCBs.
A Bench comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta noted that in the present contempt proceedings it would not be befitting for the Court to keep monitoring the matter further. While closing the proceedings, the Bench asked the State of Mizoram and Manipur to consider the desirability of changing the rules in terms with the suggestions in the five reports placed before the Apex Court. Moreover, it noted -
“Any person aggrieved by the Rules is at liberty to seek remedies in law.”
In the present proceedings, the petitioners had complained about the wilful and deliberate contempt by State Governments. In view of the same, cognisance was taken, and the Apex Court had issued notice to all the State Government/UTs and the Union Government. To discharge their responsibilities under the notice, the concerned parties had filed affidavits. During the pendency of the contempt petitions, some of the States had amended their Rules, while others framed fresh Rules for Appointment.
Considering the Rules framed or the amendments made, the Court opined that hence and by large the States have compiled with the order of the Supreme Court with respect to framing of guidelines and recruitment Rules for SPCBs, along with essential eligibility criteria. It is pertinent to note that the correctness of these Rules have been made the subject matter of the present contempt proceedings.
[Case Title: Amitabh Srivastava v. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari And Ors. Contempt Pet(C) No. 655/2020 in CA No. 1359/2017]