Point of law: It is best left to the wisdom of the legislature to deal with the exigency.

ORDER :

Writ petition in W.P.No.10843/2021 is filed seeking issue of a writ of quo-warranto quashing the Notification No.DPAR 60 SLA 2021 dated 03.04.2021 as per Annexure-F by which the respondent No.3 has been appointed as Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “KPSC”) under Article 316 (1) of the Constitution of India, while Writ Petition in W.P.No.12030/2020 is filed seeking issue of a writ of quo-warranto prohibiting respondent Nos.4 to 14 from exercising their duties as members of the Karnataka Public Service Commission who are appointed in terms of Notifications produced at Annexures-A, B, C and D.

2. Since both these writ petitions, though filed as public interest litigations, involve identical facts situation and issues concerning appointment of members and Chairman to the ‘KPSC’, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the State Government has not considered the directions purportedly issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court while appointing the members and Chairman of the KPSC and that such appointments have been made without there being any rules and regulations.

4. Sri. Umapathi S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.12030/2020 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted that;

(a) Article 316 of the Constitution of India does not specify any qualification for the members of KPSC except providing ten years of experience in the Government service in respect of official members and only a goodwill of the Government in respect of non-official members;

(b) That Chief Minister of the State has been given power to appoint Chairman and members of the KPSC and such power is exercised without due process of law. That a perusal of the documents obtained under Right to Information Act would show that the Government has appointed respondent Nos.4 to 14 as members of KPSC without any deliberation. That there is no transparency in the process of their appointment.

(c) That the Government of Karnataka has not framed any rules for the appointment of Chairman and members of the KPSC till date. That the appointment of Chairman and members of the KPSC is being done by the State Government at its own will as and when the vacancy arose without any norms. That in view of the nature and importance of functions and responsibilities of the KPSC, it was incumbent upon the State Government to ensure the Chairman and members of the KPSC should be academicians, professionals and experts. That the manner of appointment of respondent Nos.4 to 14 as members of the KPSC would show the same has been made without any transparency, enquiry or scrutiny regarding their eligibility.

(d) That though Article 316 of the Constitution of India does not specify the qualification for appointment of persons as Chairman and members of KPSC, the State Government is not absolved of its responsibility in qualitative assessment of the candidature and competency of the persons to be appointed. That the appointment of respondent Nos.4 to 14 as members of KPSC is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

(e) In the absence of any rules having been framed as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the exercise of the power by the State Government in appointing respondent Nos.4 to 14 is arbitrary.

5. Sri. R.A. Devnand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.10840/2021 contended;

(a) that the State Government has not framed any rules for appointment of the Chairman and members of the KPSC.

(b) that the Government of India had constituted a Committee headed by one Sri.P.C.Hota as its Chairman to bring in reforms in the matter of Civil services who had submitted his report dated 30.07.2004 making several recommendations. That in the said report, at Point No.7, a recommendation