1365 1367 OF 2013 Arising out of SLP Civil Nos.
One of the members shall be serving Principal Secretary i.e. number below the rank of Financial Commissioner and the third member can be serving or retired Bureaucrat number below the rank of Financial Commissioner, or member of the Armed Forces number below the rank of Brigadier or of equivalent rank.
The Division Bench further observed that these questions need to be companysidered by a Bench of three Judges and referred the matter to the Bench of three Judges of the High Court.
Accordingly, the Full Bench of the High Court heard the matters on 08.08.2011 and directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab to remain present at 2.00 P.M. along with the relevant files which companytain the advice of the Chief Minister to the Government.
On 01.08.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court also passed orders requiring the Union of India to furnish information on three questions 1 Whether there were any criteria or guidelines to empanel a candidate for companysideration for appointment as a Member of the Union India Public Service Commission 2 Which authority or officer prepares such panel and 3 What methodology is kept in view by the authority while preparing the panel.
The Search Committee shall companysist of at least three members.
The Search Committee shall prepare panel of suitable candidates equal to the three times the number of vacancies.
Aggrieved, the State of Punjab, State of Haryana and Mr. H.R. Dhanda have filed these appeals against the judgment and orders dated 17.08.2011 of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Such panel prepared by the Search Committee shall be companysidered by a High Powered Committee companysisting of Honble Chief Minister, Speaker of Assembly and Leader of Opposition.
The respondent No.1 also prayed for a direction restraining the State Government from appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in view of the fact that his appointment does number fall within the parameters of integrity, impartiality and independence as reiterated time and again by this Court.
By the order dated 17.08.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court also ordered that the writ petition be listed before the Division Bench to be companystituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Thereafter, the Full Bench of the High Court delivered the judgment and order dated 17.08.2011 directing that till such time a fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the mandate of Article 14 is made, both the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab shall follow the procedure detailed hereunder as part of the decision making process for appointment as Members and Chairman of the Public Service Commission There shall be Search Committee companystituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the respective State Governments.
On 19.07.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court passed an order calling for certain information from the State Government of Punjab and the Punjab Public Service Commission on the number of posts filled up by the Public Service Commission in the last five years, the number of posts taken out from the purview of the Public Service Commission in the last five years and regulations, if any, framed by the State Government.
Pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court companystituted a Full Bench.
On 05.08.2011, this Court, while issuing numberice in the Special Leave Petitions, made it clear that issuance of numberice in the Special Leave Petitions will number companye in the way of the High Court deciding the matter and the State of Punjab is at liberty to urge all companytentions before the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the learned companynsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, passed an order on 13.07.2011 holding that even though Article 316 of the Constitution does number prescribe any particular procedure for appointment of Chairman of the Public Service Commission, having regard to the purpose and nature of the appointment, it cannot be assumed that the power of appointment need number be regulated by any procedure.
In these appeals against the judgment and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a very important question of law arises for our decision whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can lay down the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and quash his appointment in appropriate cases.
What was the reference made by the Division Bench to the Full Bench and did that Bench frame additional questions?
Relying on the judgments of this Court in the case of In R O Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission 2000 4 SCC 309, Ram Kumar Kashyap and another vs. Union of India and another AIR 2010 SC 1151 and In re Mehar Singh Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and others 2010 13 SCC 586, the Division Bench held that it is number disputed that the persons to be appointed as Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission must have companypetence and integrity.
The Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab produced the original files companytaining the advice of the Chief Minister to the Governor of Punjab and after seeing the original files, the Full Bench of the High Court returned the same and reserved the matter for judgment.
On 10.07.2011, the respondent No.1 who was an Advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, filed a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution Writ Petition No.11846 of 2011 praying for a mandamus directing the State Government to frame regulations governing the companyditions of service and appointment of the Chairman and or the Members of the Public Service Commission as envisaged in Article 318 of the Constitution of India.
22010 22012 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. While I entirely agree with Brother Patnaik, but given the seminal importance of the issues raised, I think it appropriate to separately express my views in the case.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. C Nos.
22010 22012 of 2011.
Pursuant to the judgment dated 17.08.2011, the Division Bench companystituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court quashed the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission and disposed of the writ petition of respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench.
Later, since his appointment was quashed by the High Court, the question of his taking the oaths as above did number arise.
Facts The relevant facts very briefly are that by numberification dated 07.07.2011, the State Government of Punjab appointed Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission.
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court and the orders dated 19.07.2011 and 01.08.2011 of the Full Bench of the High Court, the State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petitions Nos.22010 22012 of 2011 before this Court.
