IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, JJ.
Prof. A.Vinayak Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana And others – Respondent
Writ Petition (PIL) No.104 of 2021
Decided on : 16-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 316, 318 - Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 - Regulations 3(2)(a)(b) - Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 - Section 83 - Indian Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - Rule 2(g) - Public interest litigation - Appointment as members of Telangana State Public Service Commission - Petition filed public interest litigation (PIL) to declare appointment of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of Telangana State Public Service Commission issued by General Administration (Services-A) Department, Government of Telangana as arbitrary and illegal and thereafter to set aside such appointments - Held, Subject matter of PIL is appointment of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of Commission. Implicit in challenge to such appointment is manner in which they were shortlisted and appointed - Thus this question is inherent in challenge itself and therefore, has been gone into by Court - Court are therefore of view that matter should be remanded back to State Government to make a fair and proper consideration as to eminence and suitability of respondents No.4 to 9 for being appointed as members of Telangana State Public Service Commission - As pointed out by Supreme Court, merely because there are no rules or guidelines, it would not absolve State from carrying out a bona fide exercise before such selection and appointments are made - Public interest litigation is disposed of.
ORDER:
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr. S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana representing respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission, respondent No.3; Mr. B.Timoty, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Mr. P.Somasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5; Mr. Srinivasa Rao Maddiraju, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7; Mr. Venkat Reddy Kodumuri, learned counsel for respondent No.8; and Mr. A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.9.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest litigation (PIL) to declare the appointment of respondents No.4 to 9 as members of Telangana State Public Service Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021 issued by the General Administration (Services-A) Department, Government of Telangana as arbitrary and illegal, being violative of Regulations 3(2)(a) and (b) of Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations’) and thereafter to set aside such appointments.
3. Petitioner is a retired professor of Economics, Kakatiya University, Warangal. He is a public spirited person engaged in various social activities which are in the larger interest of the society. He had played an active role in the agitation for a separate State of Telangana.
4. State of Telangana in the General Administration (Services-A) Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 08.08.2014 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 16.02.2017 framing a set of regulations called Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 318 and under the proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India read with the proviso to Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.
4.1. As per Regulation 3(1) of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2014, Telangana State Public Service Commission (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Commission’) shall consist of the Chairman and such other members not exceeding eleven in number comprising of eminent persons possessing high degree of calibre, competence, professional integrity and honesty who would inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the Commission.
4.2. Regulation 3(2) says that the Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor of the State. Proviso to Regulation 3(2) has two parts – (a) and (b). As per proviso (a), as nearly as may be one half of the members shall be those who have served as officers of All India Services, Central Services or State Civil Services who on the dates of their appointments have held office for at least ten years either in the Government of India or in the State Government subject to clearance of their names from the vigilance angle. Proviso (b) says that the remaining members shall be from amongst eminent people with a background in academics/management/ law/science and technology/social science and humanities and known for their integrity.
4.3. Regulation 4 deals with salary and other emoluments of the Chairman and other members of the Commission.
4.4. Regulation 5 on the other hand deals with different kinds of leave available to the Chairman and members of the Commission which they are entitled to avail in the manner provided.
5. According to the petitioner, respondents No.4 to 9 were appointed as members of the Commission vide notification dated 19.05.2021 issued by the Government of Telangana in the General Administration (Services-A) Department. As per the said notification which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 19.05.2021, Governor of Telangana in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 316(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India appointed Dr. B.Janardhan Reddy as the Chairman and seven others including r
Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa [(1975) 2 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 362 : AIR 1975 SC 2226
SupremeToday
The court found that the chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission misbehaved by failing to maintain integrity, refusing to cooperate with investigations, and engaging in arbitrar....
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment made under Article 316(1) is complete and removal requires adherence to Article 317. The court held that the recall of the app....
Public interest litigations in service matters should not be entertained, and the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered but to correct any error visible on....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial dominance in the Selection Committee and the need to maintain the judicial primacy over the appointment process for th....
(1) Constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test as a part of selection criteria for appointment to District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respecti....
The court holds that it cannot interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee unless there is arbitrariness or statutory aberration. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.