Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALOK ARADHE, J.
A. Ramachandra Rao - Appellant
Versus
Secretary To Government Department of Personnel And Administrative Reforms - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21456, 8291 of 2019
Decided On : 03-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Satish M. Doddamani, Adv., Mr. Udaya Holla, Adv., Rajashekar K., Adv., Vikram Huilgol, Adv., Gurumath Gangadhar Rudramuni Sharma, Adv., Shivayogesha Shivayogimath, Adv.
The Act does not prescribe any basic qualification for the candidates, and the recommendations made by the Selection Committee should not be interfered with unless there are allegations of malafides against the experts.
Headnote:
Information Commissioners - Appointment Process - Right to Information Act,2005 - [RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, Section 12(5), Section 15(5)] - The court dismissed the petitions challenging the appointment of Information Commissioners, holding that the appointment process was in compliance with the Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the Act does not prescribe any basic qualification for the candidates and that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee should not be interfered with unless there are allegations of malafides against the experts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of private respondents as Information Commissioners, alleging non-compliance with the eligibility criteria and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment process was in compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. It held that the Act does not prescribe any basic qualification for the candidates and that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee should not be interfered with unless there are allegations of malafides against the experts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with eligibility criteria and guidelines for the appointment of Information Commissioners, as well as the qualifications required for the candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Act does not prescribe any basic qualification for the candidates and that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee should not be interfered with unless there are allegations of malafides against the experts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges against the appointment process.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. 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 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 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 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 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 petitione
