Karnataka High Court
Sri. A. Ramachandra Rao vs The Secretary To Government on 3 September, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.21456 OF 2019
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.21456 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI A RAMACHANDRA RAO
S/O SRI ARJUN RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETIRED AS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA VEDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
RESIDING AT NO 1242/2 4TH CROSS
4TH MAIN ROAD DR AMBEDKAR LAYOUT
NEW EXTENSION KAVALBYRASANDRA
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 032
... PETITIONER
(By MR.SATISH M DODDAMANI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
JANASPANDANA, 12TH FLOOR,
PHODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARAYYA TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
JANASPANDANA, 3RD FLOOR,
PHODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARAYYA TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER/
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
IN KARNATAKA, INFORMATION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, JANASPANDANA,
12TH FLOOR, PHODIUM BLOCK,
VISVESHWARAYYA TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. SRI. S.M. SOMASHEKAR IFS (HR) 1983 RETIRED
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
RESIDING AT NO.1316/F, 80 FEET ROAD,
9TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,
II PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.
5. SRI. K.P.MANJUNATH
S/O SRI. K. PARAMESHWARAPPA,
ADVOCATE, 12TH CROSS,
CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR,
SHIKARIPURA TOWN/TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By MR.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
MR.RAJASHEKAR K, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5,
MR.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DTD: 22.3.2019 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
APPOINTMENT OF R-3 AND 4 INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS
ARE CONCERNED AS VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-1, AND
ETC.
3
WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
MR J M RAJASHEKHARA
S/O JAYADEVAIAH MATHAD
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
#36 AMMA
BESIDE MOUNT VIEW SCHOOL
HUNASIKATTI ROAD'RANNEBENNUR 581 115
HAVAERI DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(By MR.GURUMATH GANGADHAR RUDRAMUNI SHARMA, SENIOR
COUSEL FOR MR.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATVE REFORMS
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
3RD BLOCK PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
... RESPONDENT
(By MR.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
MR.RAJASHEKAR K, ADV. FOR R2 & R3,
MR.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R1)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF
SELECTION OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SOUGHT TO BE
MADE IN PURSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION DATED 7TH AUGUST 2018
(ANNEXURE-B); AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
Mr.Satish M.Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21456/2019 and Mr.Gurumath Gangadhar Rudramani Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8291/2019.
Mr.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for Mr.Rajashekar K., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Mr.Vikram Huilgol, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were the applicants for the post of Information Commissioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 22.03.2019 insofar as it 5 pertains to appointment of private respondents who have been selected as Information Commissioners. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to commence fresh selection process by inviting all the eligible candidates for interview and appoint the candidates who have fulfilled eligibility criteria as mentioned in the notification dated 07.08.2018.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that on 03.08.2018, a notification was issued by the State Government constituting the Selection Committee for the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners in the State of Karnataka. As per the notification, the Selection Committee comprises the Chief Minister, Leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Deputy Chief Minister. On 07.08.2018, a notification was issued by the State Government by which applications were invited for the 6 post of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. The aforesaid notification was widely published in the newspapers and also published in the official web site namely www.janaspandana.kar.nic.in. In the aforesaid notification, the eligibility criteria was clearly set out.
5. In response to the aforesaid notification, 419 applications were received by the State Government. The entire list of applicants were uploaded on the official web site. The Committee constituted under Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) comprising of the Chief Minister, Leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Deputy Chief Minister met and considered all the applications and ultimately made recommendations to the Governor of Karnataka to appoint Sri.N.C.Srinivasa, who was the Principal Secretary-Law and District Judge and also worked as Additional Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka as 7 Chief Information Commissioner, Mr.S.M.Somashekara, retired Chief Conservator of Forest and Mr.K.P.Manjunath, Advocate as Information Commissioners. Thereafter, a notification dated 22.03.2019 was issued in the name of the Governor appointing the aforesaid persons as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners and they were sworn in on 06.05.2019 as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners respectively. The petitioners who were the applicants for the post of Information Commissioner, have approached this Court in the aforesaid factual background.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.21456/2019 submitted that the appointment of Mr.Somashekara and Mr.Manjunath is bad in law as they do not have the degree in law and journalism respectively. It is further submitted that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision 8 rendered in the case of 'ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' dated 15.02.2019 have not been complied with. It is further submitted that the persons who have been appointed as Information Commissioners have no wide knowledge and experience and the proceeding of the Committee suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and are arbitrary.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8291/2019 has invited the attention of this Court to interim order dated 13.12.2018 passed in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra and has contended that neither the names of the Selection Committee nor the names of the candidates who were short listed as well as the criteria which was followed for selection, was published in the website. It is urged that while conducting the process of selection, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the interim order dated 13.12.2018 in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ have 9 been flouted with impunity. It is also submitted that the State Government has merely made a bald statement in the objection statement without any material to support the same. It is also pointed out that the directions contained in the interim order dated 13.12.2018 were reiterated by the Supreme Court in the final order which was passed on 15.02.2019 in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 submitted that the contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.21456/2019 that the candidates should have degree in law and degree in respective field, is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'NAMIT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA' (2013) 1 SCC 745. However, it is pointed out that the aforesaid decision was subsequently reviewed in 'UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAMIT SHARMA' (2013) 10 SCC 359 and in paragraph 32, it has been held that basic degree in respective field in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act is 10 not needed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid contention of the petitioners is misconceived. It is also urged that on 06.02.2019, the recommendations were already made by the State Government viz. prior to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra. While referring to the bio data / CV of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, it is pointed out that aforesaid respondents are persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge in various fields and therefore, their selection is just and proper.
9. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision taken by Selection Committee and the direction issued in ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra is complied with in letter and spirit. Learned Senior counsel in support of his submissions has referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in 'DALPAT ABASAHEB SOLUNKE AND OTHERS Vs. DR.B.S.MAHAJAN AND OTHERS' (1990) 1 SCC 305, 'MUNICIPAL BOARD, BAREILLY Vs. BHARAT OIL 11 COMPANY AND OTHERS' (1990) 1 SCC 311, 'UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAMIT SHARMA' (2013) 10 SCC 359, UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAMIT SHARMA' (2013) 10 SCC 389 as well as decision of Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra referred in W.P.Civil No.436/2018 dated 15.02.2019.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State has adopted the submission made by the Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and has submitted that respondent No.5 was infact a practicing advocate and had a Bachelors degree in law. It is also urged that the respondent No.4 is an IAS officer. It is further submitted that the order dated 13.12.2018 was an interim order which merged with the final order passed by the Supreme Court on 15.02.2019.
11. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, on 03.08.2018, a notification was issued by the State 12 Government, by which selection Committee was constituted. Thereafter, by a notification dated 07.08.2018, applications were invited for the post of Information Commissioners and Chief Information Commissioner. The aforesaid notification was widely published in various newspapers and as per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the objections filed on behalf of the State Government, it was published in the official web site namely www.janaspandana.kar.nic.in. The notification spells out the terms and conditions of the appointment and the names of the applicants were also published in the web site. It is also not in dispute that in response to the aforesaid notification inviting applications, 419 applications were received pursuant to the notification. It is pertinent to note that the fact that the names of the applicants were published in the website and the applications were invited by the State Government and the aforesaid notification was also published in the website, has not been disputed on behalf of the 13 respondents. However, the respondents have only disputed that the name of the members of the Selection Committee and the name of the candidates who were short listed by the Committee have not been published in the official website.
12. It is pertinent to note that the notification was issued by the State Government on 07.08.2018, whereas the interim order in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra was passed by the Supreme Court on 13.12.2018 i.e. much after the notification was issued by the State Government. Therefore, this Court cannot expect the State Government to act in anticipation of the directions which have been issued by the Supreme Court by way of an interim order subsequently i.e. on 13.12.2018. It is also pertinent to note that on 06.02.2019, the recommendations in respect of the names of the Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners were also made. Thereafter, the guidelines were issued 14 by the Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra on 15.02.2019. Thus, before the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra, the recommendations were already made. The guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the aforesaid guidelines do not apply retrospectively as the Supreme Court has not interpreted any statutory provision. Therefore, the aforesaid guidelines could not apply to the selection in question.
13. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the process of selection of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners have been held in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra, has no substance and deserves to be rejected. Sofar as the submission by the 15 learned counsel for the petitioners that the candidate must have a degree in the concerned discipline is concerned, the same also does not deserve acceptance as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of NAMITA SHARMA, supra was subsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA, supra wherein the Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decision and held that the Act does not prescribe any basic qualification which the persons must have in the respective fields in which they have worked. Therefore, it was held that the Supreme Court read into Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, missing words and held that such persons must have a basic degree in respective field. It was also held that this reading into Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act is contrary to the principles of statutory interpretation recognized by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the judgment was reviewed. In other words, it is evident that the person concerned need not have the Bachelor degree in the concerned field. Therefore, the challenge to the 16 appointment of the Information Commissioners on this count also does not deserve acceptance.
14. On the basis of the material placed before it, the Committee opined that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are 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. In any case, opinions with regard to their eminence as prescribed under Section 15(5) of the Act has to be formed by the Committee which is a matter of subjective satisfaction. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Committee which was duly constituted under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have failed to point out any patent illegality or arbitrariness in the recommendations made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is well settled in law that this Court should be slow to interfere with the recommendations made by a Committee comprising of experts and to interfere with 17 its recommendations unless allegations of malafides are made against the experts. In the instant case, no such allegations have been made against members of Committee. Therefore, no case of interference is made out. [SEE SAJEESH BABU K VS. N.K.SANTOSH [(2012) 12 SCC 106] AND U.V.MAHADKAR VS. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN [(2016) 1 SCC 536]].
15. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV