Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Provided that a person who is, or has been, in the service of the State Government shall not be appointed as a Chairperson unless such person has held the post of Additional Secretary to the Central Government or any equivalent post in the Central Government or State Government:

Provided further that a person who is, or has been, in the service of the State Government shall not be appointed as a member unless such person has held the post of Secretary to the State Government or any equivalent post in the State Government or Central Government."

78. There are two elements to the challenge to Mr. Sanjiv Gupta's appointment. One is that he does not possess the requisite 'professional experience' in the disciples enumerated thereunder. Secondly, that in terms of the second proviso to Section 22 of the Act, he has not held the post of Secretary to Government or any equivalent post in the State Government and therefore is also disqualified on that ground.

79. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior counsel for JLPPL laid much emphasis on the word 'professional' qualifying the word 'experience' used in Section 22 of the Act. He drew a comparison with Section 46 (1) (c) of the Act which talks of qualification of the technical and administrative members of the Appellate Tribunal. The submission is that the word 'professional' does not qualify the word 'experience' in Section 46 (1) (c) whereas it does in Section 32 of 41 CWP No. 8548 of 2020 and other connected matters page 33 of 41

81. Coming now to the second proviso to Section 22 of the Act, an affidavit has been filed by the Special Secretary, Department of Urban and Housing Development, Government of Punjab in CWP No. 8548 of 2020 clarifying that Mr. Sanjiv Gupta served at the rank of Director General of Police (DGP), a post equivalent to the post of a Secretary to the State Government. Although JLPPL in its replication to the said affidavit sought to contest the claim of equivalence of the two posts, this Court does not propose to question the veracity of the affidavit of the Special Secretary of the Government of Punjab, who is expected to have a more intimate knowledge on this aspect. In other words, the Court accepts the plea of the Respondents that Mr. Gupta satisfies the requirements of the second proviso to Section 22 of the Act as well. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court negatives the challenge to Mr. Sanjiv Gupta's appointment as member of the Authority.