Back
Members of State Public Service Commission Lack Authority to Demand Resignation of Chairperson Under Article 316:
In a significant , the has stayed a resolution passed by the members of the ) that demanded the resignation of its chairperson, Shivashankarappa S. Sahukar. The court’s intervention provides a temporary shield to the head of the amidst a heated controversy regarding alleged irregularities in recruitment processes.
The Conflict: A Question of The dispute originated during a meeting on , which was presided over by the senior-most member, B. Prabhudev, due to Mr. Sahukar’s recusal. The agenda centered on allegations that Mr. Sahukar’s daughter, Suma S. Sahukar, had submitted a caste-cum-income certificate containing "false" information while applying for the post of Industrial Extension Officer.
Beyond addressing the daughter’s application, the members present passed an additional resolution calling upon the Chairman to resign, taking "moral responsibility" for the matter. This resolution subsequently led to formal communications being sent to the Chief Secretary and the Governor of Karnataka on and 7, urging action against the Chairman.
Arguments Before the Bench Representing the petitioner, senior advocate argued that the members acted strictly outside their legal . The core contention rested on the constitutional status of the Chairman: * Appointment Authority: The Chairman is an appointee of the Governor under . * Lack of Disciplinary Power: Commission members do not possess the mandate to function as a over the Chairman. * Procedural Violations: The petitioner asserted that the introduction of an "additional agenda" concerning his resignation was not supported by the .
The petitioner further emphasized that the entire process was conducted in his absence and without adherence to the .
Key Observations Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in granting the , highlighted the constitutional imbalance the members had attempted to create. The court observed:
"The person sought to be removed is a Chairperson of respondent No.12, Karnataka State Public Service Commission, who is an appointee of His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka, and ex-facie respondent nos.1 to 11, who are the other members of the Commission could not have called upon the appointee of the Governor to resign."
The Court’s Decision and Future Implications The High Court has stayed the operation of the June 19 resolution and the subsequent letters sent to the state government and the Governor. By issuing notices to the 11 dissenting members and the Secretary, the court has effectively paused the push for the Chairman's ouster until the matter is heard in detail.
The order marks a critical moment for , reinforcing that are subject to specific removal procedures—such as those outlined in —and cannot be compelled to resign through internal resolutions passed by their subordinate colleagues or co-members. The matter is now set for further deliberation, leaving the procedural legitimacy of such internal "" in constitutional offices as a central point of judicial scrutiny.
