Telangana High Court
Prof A.Vinayak Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 8 Others on 16 June, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.104 of 2021
% Date: 16.06.2023
# Prof. A.Vinayak Reddy
... Petitioner
v.
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government,
General Administration Department,
Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan,
Hyderabad - 500 029,
And others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.Satyam Reddy
Learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K.V.Rajasree
^ Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. B.S.Prasad,
Learned Advocate General
^ Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr. Ram Gopal Rao
Learned Standing Counsel for TSPSC
^ Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr. B.Timoty
^ Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr. P.Somasekhar Reddy
^ Counsel for respondents No.6 & 7: Mr. Srinivasa Rao Maddiraju
2
^ Counsel for respondent No.8: Mr. Venkat Reddy Kodumuri
^ Counsel for respondent No.9: Mr. A.Sudershan Reddy,
Learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.Janardhan Reddy
< GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
1. (1985) 4 SCC 417
2. (2013) 5 SCC 1
3. (2000) 4 SCC 309
4. (2006) 11 SCC 356
5. (2009) 5 SCC 65
6. (2010) 13 SCC 586
7. (2013) 5 SCC 1
3
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.104 of 2021
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana representing respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission, respondent No.3; Mr. B.Timoty, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Mr. P.Somasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5; Mr. Srinivasa Rao Maddiraju, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7; Mr. Venkat Reddy Kodumuri, learned counsel for respondent No.8; and Mr. A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.9.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation (PIL) to declare the appointment of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of Telangana State Public Service Commission 4 vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 issued by the General Administration (Services-A) Department, Government of Telangana as arbitrary and illegal, being violative of Regulations 3(2)(a) and (b) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Regulations') and thereafter to set aside such appointments.
3. Petitioner is a retired professor of Economics, Kakatiya University, Warangal. He is a public spirited person engaged in various social activities which are in the larger interest of the society. He had played an active role in the agitation for a separate State of Telangana.
4. State of Telangana in the General Administration (Services-A) Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 08.08.2014 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017 framing a set of regulations called Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 318 and under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution 5 of India read with the proviso to Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.
4.1. As per Regulation 3(1) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014, Telangana State Public Service Commission (referred to hereinafter as 'the Commission') shall consist of the Chairman and such other members not exceeding eleven in number comprising of eminent persons possessing high degree of calibre, competence, professional integrity and honesty who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the Commission. 4.2. Regulation 3(2) says that the Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor of the State. Proviso to Regulation 3(2) has two parts - (a) and (b). As per proviso (a), as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be those who have served as officers of All India Services, Central Services or State Civil Services who on the dates of their appointments have held office for at least ten years either in the Government of 6 India or in the State Government subject to clearance of their names from the vigilance angle. Proviso (b) says that the remaining members shall be from amongst eminent people with a background in academics/management/ law/science and technology/social science and humanities and known for their integrity. 4.3. Regulation 4 deals with salary and other emoluments of the Chairman and other members of the Commission.
4.4. Regulation 5 on the other hand deals with different kinds of leave available to the Chairman and members of the Commission which they are entitled to avail in the manner provided.
5. According to the petitioner, respondents No.4 to 9 were appointed as members of the Commission vide notification dated 19.05.2021 issued by the Government of Telangana in the General Administration (Services-A) Department. As per the said notification which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021, Governor of 7 Telangana in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 316(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India appointed Dr. B.Janardhan Reddy as the Chairman and seven others including respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Commission. It was clarified that the Chairman and the members would hold office for a term of six years from the date on which they had entered upon their office or attained the age of 62 years whichever was earlier.
6. Petitioner has alleged that respondents No.4 to 9 cannot be said to be eminent personalities and therefore they are neither eligible nor suitable to be appointed as members of the Commission.
6.1. Respondent No.4 holds a master degree in Engineering and retired as Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Health Department, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). He is neither a member of the State Civil Services nor an eminent person.
6.2. Respondent No.5 was working as a professor in a private engineering college and had taught Physics to the 8 first year B.Tech students only. Therefore, he also should not be treated as an eminent person.
6.3. Likewise, respondent No.6 was working as Telugu Pandit Grade - II in a school which is equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher. Thus she also does not satisfy the criteria of an eminent person and not entitled to hold the office of member of the Commission.
6.4. Respondent No.7 is a retired Deputy Tahsildar/ Superintendent in the Revenue Department. He cannot be termed as an eminent person qualified to be appointed as member of the Commission.
6.5. Petitioner has stated that respondent No.8 is a graduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and does not possess the required qualification as prescribed under Regulations 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b).
6.6. Respondent No.9 holds a bachelor degree in Arts and was a newspaper reporter. He was elected as Member of the Legislative Council in the year 2007. Thus, he lacks 9 the essential qualification to be appointed as member of the Commission in terms of Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014.
7. Petitioner has stated that respondents No.4 to 9 are not State Civil Service Officers within the meaning of State Civil Services as defined in Rule 2(g) of the Indian Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. They, being not State Civil Service Officers, are not eligible to hold the office of member of the Commission. Insofar respondent No.7 is concerned, he had joined service in the Revenue Department as a Lower Division Clerk/Typist and retired from service as Deputy Tahsildar which is a non-gazetted post. Therefore, he is also not eligible to hold office of member of the Commission as per Regulation 3(2)(a).
8. It is contended that Commission discharges important functions and duties. Members of the Commission by virtue of their eminence and standing must inspire confidence amongst the candidates seeking 10 selection and appointment through the Commission. It is unfortunate that State has appointed respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Commission who are neither eligible nor suitable for holding office as members of the Commission.
9. It is in the above backdrop that prayer has been made to declare the appointments of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same.
10. On 08.11.2021 this Court had issued notice.
11. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit through Mr. Vikas Raj, Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana, General Administration Department. Reference has been made to Regulations 3(2)(a) and (b) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017. Regulation 3(2)(a) says that as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be 11 those who have served as officers of All India Services, Central Services or State Services who on the dates of their appointment have held office for at least ten years either in the Government of India or in the State Government. Regulation 3(2)(b) says that the remaining members shall be from amongst eminent people with a background in academics/management/law/science and technology/social science and humanities and are known for their integrity.
11.1. Vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021, altogether eight persons were appointed as Chairman and members of the Commission. While Dr. B.Janardhan Reddy was appointed as the Chairman, the remaining seven persons, including respondents No.4 to 9, were appointed as members of the Commission. It is stated that Dr. B.Janardhan Reddy (Chairman), Sri Ramavath Dhan Singh (respondent No.4), Smt. Kotla Aruna Kumari and Sri Karam Ravinder Reddy (respondent No.7) were appointed under Regulation 3(2)(a) as belonging to State Services. On the other hand, the following persons were 12 appointed under Regulation 3(2)(b) as eminent people:
Prof. Bandi Linga Reddy (respondent No.5), Smt. Sumithra Anand Tanoba (respondent No.6), Dr. Aravelli Chandrasekhar Rao (respondent No.8) and Sri R.Satyanarayana (respondent No.9).
11.2. Respondent No.1 has argued that respondents No.4 to 9 are fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as members of the Commission. Insofar respondent No.4 is concerned, it is stated that he had started his State service in the year 1987 as Deputy Executive Engineer and is having more than the stipulated service as provided in Regulation 3(2)(a) of the Regulations. 11.3. As regards respondent No.5 - Prof. Bandi Linga Reddy, he has completed his B.Sc. degree from SR & BGNR Degree College, Khammam. Thereafter, he successfully obtained M.Sc. degree in Physics following which he obtained Ph.D. degree in the field of Radiation Physics from Science College, Osmania University, Hyderabad. He joined as Lecturer in the Department of 13 Physics, Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology in the year 1996. Thereafter he served as Assistant Professor and Professor. During his 25 years tenure at Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology, he had rendered commendable service and had authored several research papers which were published in various national and international journals. He is an eminent person in the field of science and technology, academics and management.
11.4. Coming to respondent No.6 - Smt. Sumithra Anand Tanoba, it is stated that she is an active social activist and also a literary figure. She has contributed immensely in the anti liquor movement and has been in the forefront of the movement relating to woman's education and child rights. She had also participated in the agitation for a separate State of Telangana. Therefore, it is contended that she is an eminent person in the field of social science and humanities.14
11.5. Regarding respondent No.7 - Sri Karam Ravinder Reddy, it is stated that he had started his State service in the year 1987 and was having more than the stipulated service as per the requirement of Regulation 3(2)(a). 11.6. Insofar respondent No.8 - Dr. Aravelli Chandrasekhar Rao is concerned, it is stated that he had graduated in Ayurveda medicine having obtained B.A.M.S degree from Osmania University. He had setup a speciality hospital in the erstwhile Karimnagar District in the year 1986 rendering service to the economically weaker sections of the society. Besides, he has also started a critical care hospital in Siddipet to provide emergency medical and surgical care to the people residing in remote areas. Being an eminent person in the field of science and technology, he was appointed as member under Regulation 3(2)(b).
11.7. Respondent No.9 - Sri R.Satyanarayana, is a journalist. His articles and writings in newspapers highlighting various social evils prevalent in the society 15 has led to awareness amongst the people. He has also several articles to his credit regarding pollution, water resources etc. He is associated with several organisations like Manjeera Rachayithala Sangam, Telangana Vidyavanthula Vedika and Telangana Union of Working Journalists. He is thus an eminent person in the field of social science and humanities and appointed as per Regulation 3(2)(b).
11.8. Respondent No.1 has stated that there are two categories of persons in the Commission: those appointed under Regulation 3(2)(a) and the other category appointed under Regulation 3(2)(b). Hon'ble Governor on the basis of her subjective satisfaction with regard to eminence and integrity has appointed the unofficial respondents as members of the Commission. Such subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned by the petitioner, more so in the absence of any materials placed by the petitioner. The terms "eminence" and "integrity" are very wide. There cannot be a straightjacket formula to determine whether a person is eminent or not. Respondents No.4 to 9 had 16 maintained high standards of integrity and therefore they were appointed as members of the Commission. 11.9. Respondent No.1 has raised an issue as regards maintainability of the public interest litigation. It is contended that the issue raised in the public interest litigation revolves around matters of service. Adverting to several decisions of the Supreme Court, it is contended that in matters of service, public interest litigation is not maintainable. That apart, it is contended that there is no public interest involved in the litigation and bona fides of the petitioner are questionable. According to respondent No.1, petitioner has based his entire case on the ground that respondents No.4 to 9 do not fit under the criteria of having served in the State Civil Services. It is stated that Regulation 3(2)(a) as appearing in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017 uses the word "State Service" and not "State Civil Services". However, petitioner is relying on the Regulation Book published by the Commission which inadvertently used the expression "State Civil Services".
The usage of the said word "Civil" is a typographical error 17 as it is evident that the expression should have been "State Service". Contending that there is no merit in the writ petition, respondent No.1 seeks dismissal of the same.
12. In the hearing held on 27.10.2022, this Court observed that the counter affidavit of the State does not disclose the manner in which respondents No.4 to 9 were selected before being appointed as members of the Commission. Calling upon Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader to produce the relevant record on the next date, the following order came to be passed:
In this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner has questioned the appointment of respondent Nos.4 to 9 as Members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission.
While learned Advocate General submits that the above respondents have fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Regulation 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017, the counter affidavit of the State does not disclose the manner in which the above respondents were selected before being appointed.18
We wanted to know as to whether there was any selection process preceding the appointment of respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission; as to how they were short listed.
Mr. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader to produce the relevant record on the next date.
13. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 27.10.2022, Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General produced a sealed envelope which was opened in the Court. The envelope contained various documents pertaining to appointment of Chairman and members of the Commission. On going through the papers, this Court noticed that certain applications were received for appointment as members of the Commission. State was directed to file an additional affidavit to place on record all the details including the number of applications received and the process of short listing. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.11.2022 reads as follows:
Pursuant to our aforesaid order, learned Advocate General has produced before the Court a sealed envelope, which has been opened in Court, containing various documents pertaining to 19 appointment of Chairman and Members of Telangana State Public Service Commission.
On going through the papers contained in the envelope, we find that certain applications were received for appointment as Member of the Telangana State Public Service Commission.
We would like to know from learned Advocate General on what basis the applicants had submitted the applications and what was the process undertaken for short listing the Members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission from out of the applicants.
Let all the details, including number of applications received and process of short listing, be placed in the form of an additional affidavit by the State.
14. Following our order dated 14.11.2022, respondent No.1 filed an additional affidavit on 26.11.2022. It is stated that the Commission was constituted on 08.08.2014. In the year 2021, W.P (PIL).No.43 of 2021 was filed by one Sri J.Shankar alleging that there was inaction on the part of the State in filling up the vacancies of Chairman and members of the Commission and therefore, sought for a direction to fill up the said vacancies. 14.1. On 29.04.2021, this Court granted six weeks time to the State to do the needful. It was thereafter that the file 20 was processed and orders appointing Chairman and members of the Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 were issued. When this was intimated to the Court, W.P (PIL) No.43 of 2021 was disposed of on 16.06.2021 observing that nothing further survived for adjudication.
14.2. Insofar the present public interest litigation is concerned, it is stated that a detailed counter affidavit was filed. However, in view of the order of this Court dated 14.11.2022, it is stated that no applications were received for appointment as members of the Commission. In fact, there is no provision or practice for inviting applications and short listing such applications for considering appointments to the Commission. Documents submitted to the Court include the bio data of the persons furnished by them who were considered for appointment as members of the Commission. Unofficial respondents have been appointed as members of the Commission by the competent authority after due consideration of their 21 bio- data and the criteria prescribed in Regulation 3 of the Regulations.
15. In its counter affidavit, respondent No.3 i.e., Telangana State Public Service Commission has referred to Regulation 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) and states that Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017 making certain amendments to the Regulations. In Regulation 3(2)(a) earlier the length of service was twenty years required for appointment as a member of the Commission. This was amended to ten years; the expression "State Civil Services" was amended and it became "State Service" in accordance with the provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution of India. However, while carryout out the amendments there was an inadvertent typographical error. While the twenty years of service was corrected as ten years, amendment of expression of "State Civil Services" as that of "State Service" was not corrected due to oversight. Later on it was rectified while redrafting the Regulations.
2215.1. It is stated that insofar appointment of members to the Commission is concerned, Governor is the competent authority to issue orders of appointment under Article 316(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India read with Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Accordingly, orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 appointing the Chairman and seven other members to the Commission. Pursuant to the above order, the Chairman and members including respondents No.4 to 9 had assumed charge on 21.05.2021 forenoon.
15.2. A member of the Commission holds office for a term of six years from the date on which he/she enters upon his/her office or until he/she attains the age of sixty two years whichever is earlier. Orders of appointment and orders relating to demitting of office are issued by the Government. Service conditions are regulated and the members are also recalled by the Government in accordance with the Regulations. Commission has no role to play in such matters.
2315.3. However, it is stated that despite the allegations against respondents No.4 to 9, Commission has conducted the recruitments strictly in accordance with the rules and procedures.
16. Respondents No.4 to 9 have filed individual counter affidavits justifying their appointment as member of the Commission.
17. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.4 - Sri Ramavath Dhan Singh has described his educational and service qualifications. He had obtained M.E (Civil) degree with specialisation in Hydro Mechanics and Water Management from Osmania University in the year 1987. He was recruited as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1987 itself in the Andhra Pradesh Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. After several rounds of promotion, he was promoted as Engineer-in-Chief by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh on 08.08.2011. While holding that post, he also served in 24 various other capacities, firstly, under the Government of Andhra Pradesh and thereafter under the Government of Telangana. He has highlighted his various achievements in his thirty two years of service. Respondent No.4 has stated that Telangana Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service (which is a successor service of Andhra Pradesh Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service) is a State Service as per Serial No.40 of Schedule I to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991. He was thus eligible to be appointed as a member of the Commission under Regulation 3(2)(a) of the Regulations. With a background in science and technology and having integrity, he was an eminent person within the meaning of Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Regulations as well.
17.1. Respondent No.4 has also raised the issue of maintainability of the public interest litigation as it is contended that issue raised in the public interest litigation is service related. PIL on service matters is not 25 maintainable. Thus, respondent No.4 seeks dismissal of the public interest litigation with costs.
18. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.5 - Prof. Bandi Linga Reddy has also questioned maintainability of the public interest litigation on the ground that the present public interest litigation pertains to service jurisprudence which is not permissible as per decisions of the Supreme Court. As to his eligibility, he has stated that he had obtained M.Sc. degree from Osmania University in the year 1991 in Solid State Physics and in 1998 he was awarded Ph.D. degree in Radiation Physics from Osmania University. After joining the Department of Physics in Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology as Associate Professor he had become Professor in the said Institute in the year 2016. According to him, Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology is an autonomous institute affiliated to the Osmania University. It is one of the eminent institutes in the State. Respondent No.5 is well qualified having experience of twenty five years and has attained eminence in academics having science and 26 technology in his background. He was eminently suitable for appointment as member of the Commission which was done by the Government vide order dated 19.05.2021. He therefore seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
19. Respondent No.6 - Smt. Sumithra Anand Tanoba in her affidavit has questioned maintainability of the public interest litigation on the ground that issue raised in the public interest litigation revolves around service jurisprudence. Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that public interest litigation in service matters is not maintainable. Reference has been made to Articles 316 and 318 of the Constitution of India. She has also referred to Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Her contention is that the Regulations would have to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional provisions and cannot traverse beyond the same.
19.1. Referring to her qualifications, she has stated that she is a post graduate degree holder in Telugu and is engaged in social service. Earlier she was appointed as 27 member of Road Transport Authority, Nizamabad District in the year 1996.
19.2. On being selected, she joined as Language Pandit on 27.08.1998 and continued as such till May, 2021 when she was appointed as member of the Commission. 19.3. On the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.6 is not qualified to hold the office of member of the Commission on the ground that she did not belong to any State Civil Service, it is contended that one need not be a member of the State Civil Services for being appointed as a member of the Commission. In this connection, reference has been made to the proviso below Clause (1) of Article 316 of the Constitution of India. Only requirement is that a person to be eligible for being appointed as member of the Commission should have held office for at least ten years. Insofar respondent No.6 is concerned, she held office for more than twenty three years on the date of her appointment as member of the Commission. Asserting that her appointment as member of the Commission is 28 perfectly valid, respondent No.6 seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
20. Respondent No.7 in his counter affidavit while raising similar objection as to maintainability of the public interest litigation and referring to Articles 316 and 318 of the Constitution of India contends that Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations would have to be read in the light of the constitutional requirement. Any additional eligibility requirements as per the Regulations would be ultra vires the Constitution.
20.1. He joined service in the Andhra Pradesh Rayons Limited in 1984 and thereafter joined the District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited. He joined government service in the year 1987 on being selected by the Public Service Commission for Group-IV services. Ultimately, he retired from service as Deputy Tahsildar on 31.08.2020. On the date of his retirement, he had rendered thirty three years of service in the State Government.
2920.2. Respondent No.7 has stated that he was appointed as member of the Commission by the Hon'ble Governor in exercise of powers conferred under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 316 of the Constitution of India. Contention of the petitioner that respondent No.7 having retired from service as a Deputy Tahsildar is not eligible to be appointed as member of the Commission has been refuted by respondent No.7. It is asserted that respondent No.7 belongs to one of the State service which the petitioner misconstrued as State Civil Service which has been clarified by the State as being a typographical error. 20.3. Respondent No.7 has sought to distinguish the contention of the petitioner by asserting that requirement as per the proviso to Article 316 of the Constitution of India is that for being eligible to be appointed as a member of the Commission, a person should have held office for a minimum of ten years under Government of India or under the Government of a State; there is no requirement that he should have rendered ten years of 30 service as member in the State Civil Services. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the meaning of the expression of "State Civil Services" as appearing in the Indian Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 has been disputed by contending that Article 316 of the Constitution of India does not refer to the aforesaid Rules.
21. Respondent No.8 in his counter affidavit has also justified his appointment as member of the Commission. He has stated that he is a renowned doctor hailing from Rajanna Sircilla District in the State of Telangana. He has dedicated his professional life for the welfare of the poor and needy people. He obtained B.A.M.S degree from Osmania University and established a hospital by the name Tirumala Nursing Home at Mustabad near his native village Potgal. He has also described his various social activities and therefore was found to be fully competent to hold office as member of the Commission. Like the other unofficial respondents, he has also questioned maintainability of the public interest litigation on the ground that it raises questions relating to service 31 jurisprudence. Contending that respondent No.8 fulfilled the eligibility requirement under Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Regulations, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
22. Similar affidavit has been filed by respondent No.9. It is stated that as a fearless journalist he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Regulations. After obtaining B.A. degree, he worked as a reporter in various newspapers including in renowned newspapers like Eenadu and has over three decades of experience in the field of journalism. Considering his standing in the society, the graduate voters had elected him as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC) from the Graduates Constituency in the year 2007. He has asserted that he is an eminent personality with impeccable integrity. Anyway Constitution of India has not prescribed any qualification for being a member of a State Public Service Commission.
22.1. He has also filed a memo dated 22.03.2022 to bring on record various documents and the decision of the 32 Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana1 in support of his contention that the Constitution has not prescribed any qualification for appointment as member of State Public Service Commission.
23. Mr. S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Articles 316, 318 and 320 of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of the Regulations, more particularly Regulation 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b). He has also referred to the resumes of respondents No.4 to 9 and submits that none of the aforesaid respondents can be said to be eminent persons possessing high degree of calibre, competence, integrity and honesty. According to him, appointing such persons as members of the Commission would severely erode public confidence in the functioning of the Commission. That apart, it is incomprehensible that a person who reached the office of Deputy Tahsildar at the final stage of his service career has been made a member of the Commission, task of which includes selecting candidates for post of services 1 (1985) 4 SCC 417 33 requiring much higher qualification. There is thus violation of Regulations 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Regulations thereby completely vitiating the appointments of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission. He submits that the State Government has completely compromised with the sanctity, impartiality and highest office of the Commission by resorting to appointment of persons like respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Commission. He contends that this is a fit case where the Court should intervene, as the question of the faith of the candidates in the various recruitment processes undertaken by the Commission is in question; so also the confidence of the people.
24. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner have been strongly refuted by Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General. According to the learned Advocate General, appointments of respondents No.4 to 9 satisfy the requirements of Regulation 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Regulations. Constitution does not prescribe any qualification for being appointed as members of the 34 Commission. Neither the Constitution nor the Regulations lay down any prescription for holding selection to appoint members to the Commission. Besides, this is not an issue raised in the writ petition.
24.1. Learned Advocate General has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok2 in support of his contention that the Courts should be very slow in interfering with appointments of members and Chairman of State Public Service Commission, as such appointments are based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority which should not be substituted by the Court.
25. Submissions of learned Advocate General have been adopted and advanced by other learned counsel representing respondents No.3 to 9.
26. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 2 (2013) 5 SCC 1 35
27. While Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services under the Union and the States, Chapter II comprising Articles 315 to 323 deals with Public Service Commissions. Article 315(1) says that there shall be a Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State, though as per clause (2), two or more States may agree that there shall be one Public Service Commission for their States. 27.1. Article 316 deals with appointment and term of office of members. In terms of clause (1), the Chairman and other members of a Public Service Commission shall be appointed, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, by the President, and in the case of a State Commission, by the Governor of the State. As per the proviso, nearly as may be one half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. Clause (1-A) says that if the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes 36 vacant or if any such Chairman is by reason of absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office, those duties shall be performed by such one of the other members of the Commission as the President, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor of the State in the case of a State Commission, may appoint for the purpose. However, such discharge of duties shall be for such period till some person appointed under clause (1) to the vacant office has entered on the duties thereof or until the Chairman has resumed his office.
27.2. Clause (2) clarifies that a member of a Public Service Commission shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains, in the case of the Union Commission, the age of sixty five years, and in the case of a State Commission or a Joint Commission, the age of sixty two years, whichever is earlier. Proviso to clause (2) says that a member of a Public Service Commission may, by writing under his hand addressed, in the case of the Union Commission or a 37 Joint Commission, to the President, and in the case of a State Commission, to the Governor of the State, resign from his office; a member of a Public Service Commission may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (1) or clause (3) of Article 317.
27.3. Clause (3) bars a person who held office as a member of a Public Service Commission for reappointment to that office on the expiration of his term of office. 27.4. Removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission is dealt with in Article 317 of the Constitution of India, which may not be relevant for the present discourse. However, Article 318 is relevant. 27.5. Article 318 deals with the power to make regulations as to conditions of service of members and staff of the Commission. It says that in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, the President and, in the case of a State Commission, the Governor of the State may by regulations - (a) determine the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of 38 service; and (b) make provision with respect to the number of members of the staff of the Commission and their conditions of service. The proviso thereto clarifies that the conditions of service of a member of a Public Service Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
27.6. Article 319 prohibits holding of offices by members of the Commission on ceasing to be such members. For example, Chairman of Union Public Service Commission shall be ineligible for further employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; while the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as a Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of any other State Public Service Commission, but he shall not be eligible for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; a member other than the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman of the 39 Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; a member other than the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of that or any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State.
27.7. Functions of Public Service Commission are dealt with in Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Primary function of Public Service Commission, be it the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, is to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively. On all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service 40 Commission shall be consulted. Similar is the position in respect of all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity.
27.8. While Article 321 of the Constitution of India deals with the power to extend functions of Public Service Commissions, expenses of Public Service Commissions are dealt with in Article 322. Article 323 requires annual submission of report to the President in case of Union Public Service Commission, or to the Governor of the State as regards the work done by the State Commission. On receipt of such report, the Governor is required to lay the said report before the Legislature of the State.
28. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 318 and the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India and proviso to Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, Government of Telangana has made the Telangana State Public Service 41 Commission Regulations, 2014 (already referred to as, 'the Regulations').
28.1. Regulation 2(a) defines Commission to mean Telangana State Public Service Commission. 28.2. Regulation 3(1) says that the Commission shall consist of the Chairman and such other members, not exceeding eleven in number, comprising of eminent persons possessing high degree of calibre, competence, professional integrity and honesty who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the Commission.
28.3. As per Regulation 3(2), the Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor of the State. Proviso to Regulation 3(2) has two parts - (a) and (b). As per Regulation 3(2)(a), as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be those who have served as officers of All India Services, Central Services or 'State Civil Services', who on the date of their appointments have held office for at least twenty years 42 either in the Government of India or in the State Government, subject to clearance of their names from the vigilance angle. Regulation 3(2)(b) says that the remaining members shall be from among the eminent people with a background in academics/management/law/science and technology/social science and humanities and known for their integrity.
28.4. Regulation 4 deals with the salary and other emoluments to be paid to the Chairman and all the other members of the Commission.
28.5. Likewise, Regulation 5 deals with various categories of leave that may be availed of by a member.
28.6. Regulation 11 provides that there shall be an academic cell consisting of two advisors not below the rank of Professor (belonging to science and humanities faculty) to be appointed by the Commission on a tenure basis not more than three years to advise on matters as prescribed by the Commission.
4328.7. Regulation 19 deals with recruitment and the role of the Commission. As per Regulation 19(a), the Commission in the matter of recruitment to the public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State shall strictly adhere to the provisions contained in the rules, orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time governing such recruitment. Regulation 19(b) empowers the Commission to take up recruitment to the posts and services in respect of corporations, public sector undertakings, local bodies etc., owned by the State as and when called upon by the Government.
29. The Regulations came to be amended vide G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017 in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 318 of the Constitution of India. As per the amendment, Telangana Public Service Commission became Telangana State Public Service Commission (already referred to as 'the Commission'). Regulation 3(2)(a) came to be substituted and post amendment, it says that as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be those who have served as officers of 44 All India Services, Central Services or State Services and who on the dates of their appointments have held office for at least ten years either in the Government of India or in the State Government subject to clearance of their names from the vigilance angle.
30. Thus, following the amendment in Regulation 3(2)(a), instead of 'State Civil Services' the requirement became rendering of service as officers of 'State Service' for at least ten years.
31. We may mention that as per Schedule I of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, there are as many as 58 State services including Andhra Pradesh Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service at serial No.40.
32. Let us now refer to and analyse some of the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the status and importance of the Public Service Commission, Chairman and members of the Commission.
45
33. Certain selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services were set aside by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. This decision of the Division Bench was assailed before the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). It was in the context of such a challenge that Supreme Court observed that Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place of importance in the State. Integrity and efficiency of its administrative apparatus depends considerably on the quality of the selections made by the Public Service Commission. It is absolutely essential that the best and finest talent should be drawn in the administration and the administrative services must be composed of men who are honest, upright and independent, not swayed by any political swings. Supreme Court emphasised that this can be achieved only if the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are eminent men possessing a high degree of calibre, competence and integrity who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the 46 objectivity and impartiality of the selections to be made by them. Supreme Court, therefore, strongly impressed upon every State Government to see to it that its Public Service Commission is manned by competent, honest and independent persons of outstanding ability and high reputation who command the confidence of the people and who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous considerations from discharging their duty of making selections strictly on merit. This is what the Supreme Court observed:
30. Before we part with this judgment we would like to point out that the Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place of importance in the State and the integrity and efficiency of its administrative apparatus depends considerably on the quality of the selections made by the Public Service Commission. It is absolutely essential that the best and finest talent should be drawn in the administration and administrative services must be composed of men who are honest, upright and independent and who are not swayed by the political winds blowing in the country. The selection of candidates for the administrative services must therefore be made strictly on merits, keeping in view various factors which go to make up a strong, efficient and people oriented administrator. This can be achieved only if 47 the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are eminent men possessing a high degree of calibre, competence and integrity, who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the selections to be made by them. We would therefore like to strongly impress upon every State Government to take care to see that its Public Service Commission is manned by competent, honest and independent persons of outstanding ability and high reputation who command the confidence of the people and who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous considerations from discharging their duty of making selections strictly on merit. Whilst making these observations we would like to make it clear that we do not for a moment wish to suggest that the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in the present case were lacking in calibre, competence or integrity.
34. Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav3 was answering a reference made by the President under Article 317(1) of the Constitution for conducting an enquiry and submitting a report as to whether Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission ought on the ground of misbehaviour be removed from the office of Chairman, Bihar Public Service 3 (2000) 4 SCC 309 48 Commission. It was in that context Supreme Court observed that the genesis for setting up of autonomous and independent bodies like the Public Service Commission at the Centre and in the States was intended to secure an efficient civil service. The values of independence, impartiality and integrity are the basic determinants of the constitutional conception of Public Service Commissions and their role and functions. To enable the Public Service Commissions to discharge their constitutional duties and obligations in full measure, the framers of the Constitution not only armed them with enhanced powers and increased functions but also provided security of tenure for the Chairman and members. Strict judicial procedure contained in Article 317(1) and the Rules framed thereunder and the requirement that the President himself have the supporting report of the Supreme Court in order to suspend or remove the Chairman or member of a Public Service Commission are undoubtedly intended to provide safeguard to the Chairman and members of the 49 Commission in the larger interest of the administration of the civil services in the country. It was in that context, Supreme Court held as follows:
4. Keeping in line with the high expectations of their office and need to observe absolute integrity and impartiality in the exercise of their powers and duties, the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability and they in turn are expected to be models themselves in their functioning. The character and conduct of the Chairman and members of the Commission, like Caesar's wife, must therefore be above board. They occupy a unique place and position and utmost objectivity in the performance of their duties and integrity and detachment are essential requirements expected from the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commissions.
5. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission is in the position of a constitutional trustee and the morals of a constitutional trustee have to be tested in a much stricter sense than the morals of a common man in the marketplace. Most sensitive standard of behaviour is expected from such a constitutional trustee. His behaviour has to be exemplary, his actions transparent, his functioning has to be objective and in performance of all his duties he has to be fair, detached and impartial.50
34.1. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability. They in turn are expected to be models themselves in their functioning. Chairman of the Public Service Commission is in the position of a constitutional trustee. Morals of a constitutional trustee have to be tested in a much stricter sense than the morals of a common man in market place. Though in that case, Supreme Court opined that no charge of misbehaviour was established against Dr. Yadav, nonetheless in the context of the report, Supreme Court further observed as follows:
34. The credibility of the institution of a Public Service Commission is founded upon the faith of the common man in its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded and confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or the members of the Commission act subjectively and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from the Chairman and members of the Commission. The Commission must act fairly, without any pressure or influence from any quarter, unbiased and 51 impartially, so that the society does not lose confidence in the Commission. The high constitutional trustees, like the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission must forever remain vigilant and conscious of these necessary adjuncts.
34.2. According to the Supreme Court, credibility of an institution like the Public Service Commission is founded upon the faith of the common man in its proper functioning. Chairman and members being high constitutional trustees, they must forever remain vigilant.
35. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab4 is a case from the Punjab. Allegation was that Chairman of Punjab Public Service Commission had got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous considerations between 1996 and 2002. State Government decided to cancel the entire selection made for recruitment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) and allied services in 1998.
Regarding judicial officers appointed to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch), on recommendations made by the High Court, the State Government terminated the 4 (2006) 11 SCC 356 52 services of those who were appointed on the basis of such selection. Those officers had filed a number of writ petitions before the High Court which were dismissed by the Full Bench, whereafter appeals came to be filed before the Supreme Court. It was in that context, Supreme Court delved into the constitutional status of Public Service Commission. Amongst others, Supreme Court observed that with a view to uphold the dignity and independence of the Public Service Commission, salaries, allowances and pensions payable to the members of the Public Service Commission are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and/or Consolidated Funds of the States. 35.1. In his partly dissenting judgment, Dalveer Bhandari, J, noted that from this unfortunate episode, an important lesson is to be learnt viz, before appointing the constitutional authorities, there should be a thorough and meticulous enquiry and scrutiny regarding their antecedents. Integrity and merit have to be properly considered and evaluated in the appointments to such high positions. It is an urgent need of the hour that in 53 such appointments, absolute transparency is required to be maintained and demonstrated. Impact of the deeds and misdeeds of the constitutional authorities affect a very large number of people for a long time. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that only people of high integrity, merit, rectitude and honesty are appointed to those constitutional positions.
36. In State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh5, a large number of appointments were made in the State of Bihar despite a ban in place. This compelled the State Government to pass an order on 10.03.1985 cancelling all ad hoc appointments and directing filling up the vacancies as per the Rules. Termination of service of the ad hoc appointees came to be challenged in a batch of writ petitions before the Patna High Court. A learned Single Judge set aside the termination of such service on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and directed their reinstatement. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench, whereafter 5 (2009) 5 SCC 65 54 the matter travelled to the Supreme Court. It was in that context, Supreme Court discussed about the status of the Public Service Commissions. Supreme Court observed that expectation of the framers of the Constitution that after independence every citizen will get equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State and that members of civil services would remain committed to the Constitution and honestly serve the people of this country have been belied by what has actually happened in the last four decades. Public Service Commissions which have been given the status of constitutional authorities and which are supposed to be totally independent and impartial while discharging their function in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution of India have become victims of the spoil system. Supreme Court noted that in the beginning, people with distinction in different fields of administration and social life were appointed as Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission but with the passage of time, appointments to these high offices became personal prerogatives of the 55 political head of the Government and men with questionable backgrounds have been appointed to such coveted position. Supreme Court observed as follows:
42. However, the hope and expectation of the framers of the Constitution that after independence every citizen will get equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State and members of civil services would remain committed to the Constitution and honestly serve the people of this country have been belied by what has actually happened in last four decades. The Public Service Commissions which have been given the status of constitutional authorities and which are supposed to be totally independent and impartial while discharging their function in terms of Article 320 have become victims of spoils system.
43. In the beginning, people with the distinction in different fields of administration and social life were appointed as Chairman and members of the Public Service Commissions but with the passage of time appointment to these high offices became personal prerogatives of the political head of the Government and men with questionable background have been appointed to these coveted positions. Such appointees have, instead of making selections for appointment to higher echelons of services on merit, indulged in exhibition of faithfulness to their mentors totally unmindful of their constitutional responsibility. This is one of several reasons why 56 most meritorious in the academics opt for private employment and ventures
37. Supreme Court once again had to answer a Presidential Reference on the omissions and commissions amounting to misbehaviour allegedly committed by the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in the case of In Re: Mehar Singh Saini6. It was in that context that Supreme Court observed that principles of public accountability and transparency in the functioning of an institution are essential for its proper governance. Conduct of the Chairman and members in the discharge of their duties has to be above board. Credibility of an institution like the Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of the common man on its proper functioning. Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability and they are expected to be role models for the persons whom they are going to select. They occupy a unique place and position. Therefore, there must be utmost objectivity in the 6 (2010) 13 SCC 586 57 performance of their duties. Integrity and detachment are essential requirements for holding these high constitutional offices. Supreme Court further held as follows:
85. Desirability, if any, of providing specific qualification or experience for appointment as Chairman/members of the Commission is a function of Parliament. The guidelines or parameters, if any, including that of stature, if required to be specified are for the appropriate Government to frame. This requires expertise in the field, data study and adoption of the best methodology by the Government concerned to make appointments to the Commission on merit, ability and integrity. Neither is such expertise available with the Court nor will it be in consonance with the constitutional scheme that this Court should venture into reading such qualifications into Article 316 or provide any specific guidelines controlling the academic qualification, experience and stature of an individual who is proposed to be appointed to this coveted office. Of course, while declining to enter into such arena, we still feel constrained to observe that this is a matter which needs the attention of the Parliamentarians and quarters concerned in the Governments. One of the factors, which has persuaded us to make this observation, is the number of cases which have been referred to this Court by the President of India in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution in recent years. A large number of inquiries are pending before 58 this Court which itself reflects that all is not well with the functioning of the Commissions.
37.1. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, desirability, if any, of providing specific qualification or experience for appointment as Chairman and members of the Commission is a function of Parliament. Guidelines or parameters, if any, if required to be specified are for the appropriate Government to frame. While Supreme Court declined to lay down any such qualification by reading down Article 316 or by providing any specific guidelines controlling the academic qualification, experience and stature of an individual proposed to be appointed as Chairman and members of the Commission, nonetheless Supreme Court felt constrained to observe that this is a matter which needs the attention of the Parliamentarians and the Government.
38. In State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok7, the question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 7 (2013) 5 SCC 1 59 of the Constitution can lay down the procedure for selection and appointment of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and quash his appointment in appropriate cases. Supreme Court referred to Article 316 of the Constitution of India as well as previous decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), Ram Ashray Yadav (supra) and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) and held as follows:
45. I have already held that it is for the Governor who is the appointing authority under Article 316 of the Constitution to lay down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, but this is not to say that in the absence of any procedure laid down by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission under Article 316 of the Constitution, the State Government would have absolute discretion in selecting and appointing any person as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission.
Even where a procedure has not been laid down by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, the State Government has to select only persons with integrity and competence for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, because the discretion vested in the State Government under Article 316 of the Constitution is impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is vested and the purposes 60 are discernible from the functions of the Public Service Commissions enumerated in Article 320 of the Constitution. Under clause (1) of Article 320 of the Constitution, the State Public Service Commission has the duty to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. Under clause (3) of Article 320, the State Public Service Commission has to be consulted by the State Government on matters relating to recruitment and appointment to the civil services and civil posts in the State; on disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of a State in a civil capacity; on claims by and in respect of a person who is serving under the State Government towards costs of defending a legal proceeding; on claims for award of pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the State Government and other matters. In such matters, the State Public Service Commission is expected to act with independence from the State Government and with fairness, besides competence and maturity acquired through knowledge and experience of public administration.
46. I, therefore, hold that even though Article 316 does not specify the aforesaid qualities of the Chairman of a Public Service Commission, these qualities are amongst the implied relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration by the Government while determining the competency of the person to be selected and appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission under Article 316 of 61 the Constitution. Accordingly, if these relevant factors are not taken into consideration by the State Government while selecting and appointing the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Court can hold the selection and appointment as not in accordance with the Constitution. To quote De Smith's Judicial Review, 6th Edn.:
"If the exercise of a discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account, or by the disregard of relevant considerations required to be taken into account (expressly or impliedly), a court will normally hold that the power has not been validly exercised. (p. 280) If the relevant factors are not specified (e.g. if the power is merely to grant or refuse a licence, or to attach such conditions as the competent authority thinks fit), it is for the courts to determine whether the permissible considerations are impliedly restricted, and, if so, to what extent. (p. 282)"
In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa [(1975) 2 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 362 : AIR 1975 SC 2226], A. Alagiriswami writing the judgment for a three- Judge Bench of this Court, explained this limitation on the power of the executive in the following words:
(SCC p. 659, para 13) "13. The executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should they take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect 62 themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The courts have power to see that the executive acts lawfully." 38.1. While Supreme Court held that it is for the Governor being the appointing authority under Article 316 of the Constitution of India to lay down the procedure for appointment of Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, it does not mean that in the absence of any procedure, the State Government would have absolute discretion in selecting and appointing any person as the Chairman or member of the State Public Service Commission. Even where a procedure has not been laid down by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, the State Government has to select only persons with integrity and competence for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, because the discretion vested in the State Government under Article 316 of the Constitution is impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is vested; the purposes are discernible from the functions of the Public Service Commissions enumerated in Article 63 320 of the Constitution. Therefore, Supreme Court held that even though Article 316 does not specify the qualities of fairness, competence and maturity as qualities of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, these qualities are amongst the implied relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration by the Government while determining the competency of the person to be selected and appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. If these relevant factors are not taken into consideration by the State Government while selecting and appointing the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Court can hold the selection and appointment as not in accordance with the Constitution.
Finally, Supreme Court concluded as under:
52. Therefore, I hold that the High Court should not normally, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere with the discretion of the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, but in an exceptional case if it is shown that relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the Constitution have not been considered by the State Government in selecting and 64 appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, the High Court can invoke its wide and extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and quash the selection and appointment to ensure that the discretion of the State Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.
38.2. While according to the Supreme Court, the High Court should not normally interfere with the discretion of the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, but in an exceptional case if it is shown that relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the Constitution have not been considered by the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman, the High Court can invoke its wide and extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and quash the selection and appointment to ensure that discretion of the State Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. If this is true for the Chairman, it applies 65 equally for the members of the Public Service Commissions.
38.3. In his concurring judgment, Madan B. Lokur, J considered the question as to maintainability of a public interest litigation questioning appointment of Chairman and members of Public Service Commission. In this context, he observed that Chairperson of a Public Service Commission holds a constitutional position and not a statutory post. Significance of this is that the eligibility parameters or selection indicators for appointment to a statutory post are quite different and distinct from the parameters and indicators for appointment to constitutional positions. He referred to Article 316 of the Constitution of India and noted that no qualification has been laid down for appointment of the Chairperson of the State Public Service Commission. Theoretically therefore Chief Minister of a State can recommend to the Governor of a State to appoint any person walking on the street as the Chairperson of the State Public Service Commission.
Chairperson is provided security of tenure since the term 66 of office is fixed at six years or until the age of 62 years whichever is earlier. The security of tenure is further confirmed by the provision for removal of the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission as provided in Article 317 of the Constitution of India. After due deliberation, it has been held that Chairperson and members of the Public Service Commission occupy a constitutional position or a constitutional post. Therefore, such appointment cannot be termed as service matter. Consequently, a public interest litigation challenging such appointment would be maintainable for the issuance of writ of quo warranto or for a writ of declaration, as the case may be.
38.4. After a conjoint reading of Articles 316 and 317 of the Constitution, Justice Lokur in his concurring judgment has observed that to prevent the person walking on the street from being appointed as the Chairperson of a State Public Service Commission, the Constitution has provided that the appointment is required to be made by the Governor of the State on advice. Public Service 67 Commission is a constitutional institution and its Chairman and members are constitutional functionaries. They discharge constitutional duties and obligations and are constitutional trustees. In the context of appointment of the Chairman, it has been held as follows:
99. While it is difficult to summarise the indicators laid down by this Court, it is possible to say that the two most important requirements are that personally the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission should be beyond reproach and his or her appointment should inspire confidence among the people in the institution. The first "quality" can be ascertained through a meaningful deliberative process, while the second "quality" can be determined by taking into account the constitutional, functional and institutional requirements necessary for the appointment.
* * * *
112. It is true that no parameters or guidelines have been laid down in Article 316 of the Constitution for selecting the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission and no law has been enacted on the subject with reference to Schedule VII List II Entry 41 of the Constitution. It is equally true that the State Government and the Governor have a wide discretion in the procedure to be followed. But, it is also true that Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., [(1978) 1 SCC 405] refers to Lord 68 Camden as having said that wide discretion is fraught with tyrannical potential even in high personages. Therefore, the jurisprudence of prudence demands a fairly high degree of circumspection in the selection and appointment to a constitutional position having important and significant ramifications.
113. Two factors that need to be jointly taken into account for the exercise of the power of judicial review are: the deliberative process and consideration of the institutional requirements.
38.5. From the above, it is seen that Supreme Court has emphasised upon a meaningful deliberative process prior to selection of a person for appointment as Chairperson of the Public Service Commission. While no parameters or guidelines have been laid down in Article 316 for selecting the Chairperson and that the State Government and the Governor have a wide discretion in the procedure to be followed, such discretion demands a fairly high degree of circumspection in the selection and appointment to a constitutional position having important and significant ramifications. While deliberating on the above aspect, Supreme Court held that appointment of the Chairman to 69 a Public Service Commission is an appointment to a constitutional position and therefore, not a "service matter". A public interest litigation challenging such an appointment is therefore maintainable. Supreme Court directed that until the State legislature enacts an appropriate law, the State of Punjab must step in and take urgent steps to frame a memorandum of procedure and administrative guidelines for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Punjab Public Service Commission so that possibility of arbitrary appointments is eliminated. 38.6. That being the position, we are of the view that the present PIL is clearly maintainable. Objection raised by the respondents as to maintainability of the PIL on the ground that it is related to service matters is wholly misconceived and is accordingly rejected.
39. Thus from the aforesaid decisions, what can be culled out is that though Article 316 does not lay down any procedure and qualification for appointment of a 70 Chairman and members of Public Service Commission, nonetheless Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place of importance in the constitutional scheme of things.
It is a constitutional institution i.e., a constitutional body. Therefore, Chairman and members of the Commission are constitutional functionaries holding constitutional posts discharging constitutional duties and obligations. Thus they occupy positions of a constitutional trustee. Therefore, the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission should be men of eminence possessing a high degree of calibre, competence and integrity who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the selections to be made by them. Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission are required to be selected on the basis of their merit, ability and suitability. Before appointing such high constitutional functionaries, there should be a thorough and meticulous enquiry as well as scrutiny regarding their antecedents. Integrity and merit have to be properly considered and evaluated. While it is 71 for the Governor who is the appointing authority under Article 316 of the Constitution to lay down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission but that does not mean that in the absence of any procedure the State Government would have absolute discretion in selecting and appointing any person as the Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission. Even where a procedure has not been laid down by the Governor for such appointment, the State Government has to select only the persons with integrity and competence for appointment as Chairman and members because the discretion vested in the State Government under Article 316 is impliedly limited which is traceable to the functions dischargeable by the Chairman and members under Article 320. In other words, Chairman and members are expected to be persons who would act independently from the State Government and with fairness besides having competence and maturity acquired through knowledge and experience of public administration. If the implied relevant factors are 72 not taken into consideration while making the selection and appointment, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can hold such selection and appointment as Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission as not in accordance with the Constitution. High Court can quash the selection and appointment to ensure that discretion of the State Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. In other words, before making such an appointment, the exercise of discretion must be preceded by a selection based on a deliberative process.
40. It is in the above context that the expression 'eminent person' appearing in Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations has to be understood. In any case, the expression 'eminent person' is followed by the words, high degree of calibre, competence, professional integrity and honesty inspiring confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the Commission. In other words, what Regulation 3(1) contemplates is that Chairman and members must be eminent persons which 73 would mean persons possessing high degree of calibre, competence, professional integrity and honesty. Regulation 3(2)(b) also says that one half of the members shall be from amongst eminent people. The expression 'eminent people' is followed by the words "with a background in academics/management/law/science and technology/social science and humanities and known for their integrity". Thus, eminent people in the context of Regulation 3(2)(b) would mean people having eminence with a background in academics, management, law, science and technology, social science and humanities and known for their integrity. We need not separately delve into the meaning of the expression 'eminent persons' or 'eminent people' because the said expressions would have to be understood in the above context as well as in the context of what the Supreme Court has held as discussed supra.
41. Though various allegations have been made as to the lack of eminence and suitability qua respondent Nos.4 to 9, we are of the view that it would not be proper on our 74 part to assess them as not eminent or less eminent or not suitable to hold the office of members of the Commission. According to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 while respondents No.4 and 7 have been appointed under Regulation 3(2)(a), respondents No.5, 6, 8 and 9 have been appointed under Regulation 3(2)(b).
42. We had already recorded that learned Advocate General had produced a sealed envelope in the proceedings held on 14.11.2022 which was opened in Court. We may now advert to the documents contained in the said envelope marked as 'original records'.
43. Documents contained in the envelope include letter dated 24.03.2021 of the 'Forum for Good Governance' addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State requesting appointment of regular Chairman and members of the Commission immediately as it was stated that at that point of time, the Commission was functioning with only one member. We, thereafter, find resumes of Dr. B.Janardhan Reddy, Principal Secretary, Agriculture 75 Department and Professor Bandi Linga Reddy (respondent No.5). We also find a single page each bio data of Kotla Aruna Kumari and Smt. Sumithra Anand Tanoba (respondent No.6) who has mentioned that she is a Telugu Pandit having the qualification of MA (Telugu) and TPT working at ZPHS (Lingampet), Kamareddy District. This is followed by resumes of Karam Ravinder Reddy (respondent No.7) who mentioned that he had several union related activities. His academic qualification is B.Sc. degree and he retired from service as Naib Tahsildar. Amongst other activities, he mentioned that he had actively participated in Telangana movement since student life. Insofar Dr. Aravelli Chandrasekhar Rao (respondent No.8) is concerned, in his bio-data he mentioned that his qualification is B.A.M.S and is running a hospital by the name of 'Sri Tirumala Nursing Home', Mustabad along with his doctor wife. Insofar R.Satyanarayana (respondent No.9) is concerned, he has mentioned in his bio-data that his educational qualification is B.A and as a profession, he 76 worked as a journalist in Eenadu, Udayam and Vartha daily newspapers from 1985 to 2007.
44. Pausing here for a moment, we are at a loss as to how and on what basis the said persons had submitted their resumes or bio-data and to whom. There is nothing on record to show that any authority had sought for their resumes/bio-data and whether such resumes/bio-data were sought for from other persons as well. We also fail to understand as to how these persons came to know that the authorities were considering filling up the post of member of the Commission.
45. Thereafter, we find notes of different Secretaries as well as Chief Vigilance Officer of various departments stating that there were no disciplinary cases or charges pending against the persons whose resumes/bio-data we have mentioned above. The file appears to have been processed by the Principal Secretary (Services), General Administration Department, whereafter eight names were proposed for Chairman and members of the Commission 77 along with their bio-data. It had the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as well as that of the Hon'ble Governor who stated that the proposal was approved subject to clearance of the names from the vigilance angle.
46. It was thereafter that G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 was issued. Thus we find that there was no deliberative process at all before appointing the Chairman and members, not to speak of any selection. It is true that neither Article 316 nor the Regulations provide for any selection, but in view of the Supreme Court decisions discussed supra, it is axiomatic that there must be some kind of a deliberative process and/or a screening process before selection and appointment of Chairman and members of the Commission considering the high constitutional position and the stature required for holding such office.
47. Having said that, we make it clear that even for a moment, it should not be understood that we are casting aspersions on the eminence or suitability of the Chairman 78 and the members including respondents No.4 to 9. But that does not mean that the State should abdicate its responsibility in carrying out the requisite consultative process to shortlist eminent and suitable persons for appointment as Chairman and members of the Commission. No such exercise is discernible.
48. Learned Advocate General had argued that the question as to how the members i.e., respondents No.4 to 9 were appointed i.e., whether there was a selection or process of shortlisting, was not raised in the PIL which is only confined to eligibility of respondents No.4 to 9 to be appointed as members of the Commission under Regulations 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b). However, as we have discussed above, subject matter of the PIL is appointment of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of the Commission. Implicit in the challenge to such appointment is the manner in which they were shortlisted and appointed. Thus this question is inherent in the challenge itself and therefore, has been gone into by the Court. 79
49. In the circumstances of the case, we are therefore of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the State Government to make a fair and proper consideration as to the eminence and suitability of respondents No.4 to 9 for being appointed as members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, merely because there are no rules or guidelines, it would not absolve the State from carrying out a bona fide exercise before such selection and appointments are made.
50. Let the fresh exercise, on remand, be carried out by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
51. In view of the above, question of setting aside G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 at this stage would not arise but the same qua respondents No.4 to 9 would be subject to the fresh consideration by the State.
52. Record submitted by the Office of the learned Advocate General be returned forthwith.
80
53. With the above directions, the public interest litigation is disposed of.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 16.06.2023 Note: LR copy be marked.
By order Pln