Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 597
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
J. Prasad Babu & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14299 of 2016
Decided On : 04-11-2016
For the Petitioners: V.V. Narayana Rao, V.Y. Prabhuvu
For the Respondents: V. Venkata Ramana, K. Sarvabhouma Rao
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 124-A(1)(d), 14, 16, 310, 316 and 320 - Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 - sub-Section (1) of Section 5 - Constitution (Ninety –ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 – Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 - Section 18 - Sec.5(1)(a) – Section Sec.6 - State Minorities Commission Act, 1998 - Section 3, 5, 6, 12 - Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 - Section 17 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21 - Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sec. 8(2) – Uttar Pradesh - Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 - Madras Societies Registration Act - Petition raises an important issue relating to the appointment of Chairman of the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes constituted under the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act - Department of Social welfare the 2nd respondent is the Commissioner and Director of Social Welfare of the respondent the respondent is the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the respondent is the individual appointed as the Chairman of the said Commission - Scheduled Caste community of whom the 1st petitioner is an Advocate - Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Journalists and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are members of political organization by name Reservation assail the appointment of respondent as Chairman of the 3rd respondent Commission - Castes and Scheduled Tribes was constituted after the bifurcation of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary - Applications were invited from eligible candidates seeking appointment for the post of Chairman and no Search Committee was also constituted to shortlist the names of the persons who could be considered by the 1st respondent for appointment as Chairman of the said Commission – Held, Commission performing a variety of highly important functions and exercising various important powers in order to safeguard the interests of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes under the provisions of the Chapter on Fundamental rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution cannot be compared with the appointments of Directors of the Board of the State Road Transport Corporation as in who merely perform ordinary administrative functions and have no constitutional social obligations - Absence of Rules framed under the Act the 1st respondent cannot appoint any person as per it’s will and choice to the post of Chairman of the Commission - Parameters such as ability, integrity of the candidate and his record of service to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are implied by the very nature of duties entrusted to the Commission - They ought to be far above the ordinary - They are even far above those who could be Members of the Commission who are men of integrity - They ought to at least stand head and shoulders above persons who are eligible to be appointed as Members of the Commission - Opinion of the 1st respondent that a person is ‘eminent’ must be on objective material and will not rest upon a subjective view unsubstantiated by demonstrable credentials - Procedures under law to be fair just and reasonable and procedures in regard to appointments to public offices cannot be an exception - Such powers to make appointments to public offices has to be wielded and exercised in a manner consistent with public interest - Process leading up to the appointment must be fair and reasonable and provide for consideration of all persons eligible and qualified in that regard - Respondent failed to follow a transparent or objective process by giving due publicity to the fact that the State Government is in the process of filling up of vacancies in the Commission since it is conceived in public interest and discharges public functions - It’s membership/Chairmanship cannot be regarded as an instrument of conferring largesse on a chosen few - Writ Petition is allowed.
1. This Writ Petition raises an important issue relating to the appointment of Chairman of the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes constituted under the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The 1st respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social welfare; the 2nd respondent is the Commissioner and Director of Social Welfare of the 1st respondent; the 3rd respondent is the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for short, ‘the Commission’); and the 4th respondent is the individual appointed as the Chairman of the said Commission.
3. The petitioners, who are members of the Scheduled Caste community, of whom the 1st petitioner is an Advocate, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Journalists, and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are members of political organization by name Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS) assail the appointment of 4th respondent as Chairman of the 3rd respondent Commission.
4. The background facts are that under the above statute, vide G.O.Ms.No.44 Social Welfare (CV.PCR) Department dt.13-04-2016, the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was constituted after the bifurcation on 2.6.2014 of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, and the 4th respondent was appointed as Chairman of the said Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.45 Social Welfare (CV.PCR) Department dt.13-04-2016, i.e., on the very day the Commission was constituted.
5. It is an admitted fact that no applications were invited from eligible candidates seeking appointment for the post of Chairman and no Search Committee was also constituted to shortlist the names of the persons who could be considered by the 1st respondent for appointment as Chairman of the said Commission.
6. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner had sent a representation dt.14.7.2015 to the Chief Secretary of the State of A.P. along with his bio-data seeking consideration of his candidature for the post of Chairman of the Commission. Along with the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2, copy of the application dt.14-07-2015 made by 1st petitioner to the Chief Secretary of the then 1st respondent for consideration of his candidature for the said post, has been filed.
THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS
7. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.45 Social Welfare (CV.PCR) Department dt.13-04-2016 appointing the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the Commission as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set it aside.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS
8. The petitioners raise the following grounds:
(a) Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act requires that a person who is eminent and belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be appointed by the 1st respondent as Chairman of the said Commission; though the Act contains a provision for making Rules under Section 18, no Rules have been framed till date by the 1st respondent prescribing objective standards for assessing the ‘eminence’ of persons to be considered for appointment as Chairman; and without laying down any objective standards for determining the suitability of a person to be appointed to the post of Chairman, the 1st respondent had appointed the 4th respondent in arbitrary manner on the very day the Commission was notified/constituted;
(b) The fact that the 4th respondent was appointed as Chairman of the 3rd respondent Commission on the same day when the Commission itself was constituted by 1st respondent for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh suggests that there was no transparent mode adopted by the 1st respondent in selecting the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of Chairman; applications
