State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 2685 of 2012]
[Civil Appeal No. 7640 of 2011]
[Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2012]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 1365-1367 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22010-22012 of 2011]
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22010-22012 of 2011.
2. In these appeals against the judgment and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a very important question of law arises for our decision: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can lay down the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and quash his appointment in appropriate cases.
Facts:
3. The relevant facts very briefly are that by notification dated07.07.2011, the State Government of Punjab appointed Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. On 10.07.2011, the respondent No.1 who was an Advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, filed a public interest litigation under Article226 of the Constitution (Writ Petition No.11846 of 2011) praying for a mandamus directing the State Government to frame regulations governing the conditions of service and appointment of the Chairman and/or the Members of the Public Service Commission as envisaged in Article 318 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.1 also prayed for a direction restraining the State Government from appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in view of the fact that his appointment does not fall within the parameters of integrity, impartiality and independence as reiterated time and again by this Court.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, passed an order on 13.07.2011 holding that even though Article 316 of the Constitution does not prescribe any particular procedure for appointment of Chairman of the Public Service Commission, having regard to the purpose and nature of the appointment, it cannot be assumed that the power of appointment need not be regulated by any procedure. Relying on the judgments of this Court in the case of In R/O Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [(2000) 4SCC 309], Ram Kumar Kashyap and another vs. Union of India and another (AIR2010 SC 1151) and
In re Mehar Singh Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and others[(2010) 13 SCC 586], the Division Bench held that it is not disputed that the persons to be appointed as Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission must have competence and integrity. The Division Bench of the High Court further held that a question, therefore, arises as to how such persons are to be identified and selected for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission and whether, in the present case, the procedure adopted was valid and if not, the effect thereof. The Division Bench further observed that these questions need to be considered by a Bench of three Judges and referred the matter to the Bench of three Judges of the High Court.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted a Full Bench. On 19.07.2011,the Full Bench of the High Court passed an order calling for certain information from the State Government of Punjab and the Punjab Public Service Commission on the number of posts filled up by the Public Service Commission in the last five years, the number of posts taken out from the purview of the Public Service Commission in the last five years and regulations, if any, framed by the State Government. On 01.08.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court also passed orders requiring the Union of India to furnish information on three questions: (1) Whether there were any criteria or guidelines to empanel a candidate for consideration for appointment as a Member of the Union India Public Service Commission; (2)Which authority or officer prepares such panel; and (3) What methodology is kept in view by the authority while preparing the panel.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court and the orders dated 19.07.2011 and 01.08.2011 of the Full Bench of the High Court, the State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petitions(C) Nos.22010-22012 of 2011 before this Court. On 05.08.2011, this Court, while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petitions, made it clear that issuance of notice in the Special Leave Petitions will not come in the way of the High Court deciding the matter and the State of Punjab is at liberty to urge all contentions before the High Court. Accordingly, the Full Bench of the High Court heard the matters on 08.08.2011 and directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab to remain present at 2.00 P.M. along with the relevant files which contain the advice of the Chief Minister to the Government. The Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab produced the original files containing the advice of the Chief Minister to the Governor of Punjab and after seeing the original files, the Full Bench of the High Court returned the same and reserved the matter for judgment.
7. Thereafter, the Full Bench of the High Court delivered the judgment and order dated 17.08.2011 directing that till such time a fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the mandate of Article 14 is made, both the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab shall follow the procedure detailed hereunder as part of the decision-making process for appointment as Members and Chairman of the Public Service Commission:-
1. There shall be Search Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the respective State Governments.
2. The Search Committee shall consist of at least three members. One of the members shall be serving Principal Secretary i.e. not below the rank of Financial Commissioner and the third member can be serving or retired Bureaucrat not below the rank of Financial Commissioner, or member of the Armed Forces not below the rank of Brigadier or of equivalent rank.
3. The Search Committee shall consider all the names which came to its notice or are forwarded by any person or by any aspirant. The Search Committee shall prepare panel of suitable candidates equal to the three times the number of vacancies.
4. While preparation of the panel, it shall be specifically elicited about the pendency of any court litigation, civil or criminal, conviction or otherwise in a criminal court or civil court decree or any other proceedings that may have a bearing on the integrity and character of the candidates.
5. Such panel prepared by the Search Committee shall be considered by a High Powered Committee consisting of Hon'ble Chief Minister, Speaker of Assembly and Leader of Opposition.
6. It is thereafter, the recommendation shall be placed with all relevant materials with relative merits of the candidates for the approval of the Hon'ble Governor after completing the procedure before such approval.
7. The proceedings of the Search Committee shall be conducted keeping in view the principles laid down in Centre for Public Interest Litigation's case (supra).By the order dated 17.08.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court also ordered that the writ petition be listed before the Division Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
8. Pursuant to the judgment dated 17.08.2011, the Division Bench constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court quashed the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission and disposed of the writ petition of respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench. Aggrieved, the State of Punjab, State of Haryana and Mr. H.R. Dhanda have filed these appeals against the judgment and orders dated 17.08.2011 of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. Contentions of the learned counsel for the parties:
9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of Punjab, submitted that the writ petition before the High Court was a service matter and could not have been entertained by the High Court as a Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the writ petitioner. He cited the decisions of this Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 119], Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. [(1998) 7 SCC 273],Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 1 SCC 590],Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC 349], Hari BanshLal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 655] and Girjesh Mr. vastava & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. [(2010) 10 SCC 707] for the proposition that a dispute relating to a service matter cannot be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation.
10. Mr. Rao next submitted that the Division Bench has recorded a clear finding in its order dated 13.07.2011 that the allegations regarding irregularities and illegalities against Mr. Harish Dhanda in the writ petition do not stand substantiated and there was, therefore, absolutely no need for the Division Bench of the High Court to make an academic reference to the Full Bench of the High Court. He next submitted that this Court in the case of Mehar Singh Saini Chairman, HPSC In Re (supra) had already declared the law that it is for the legislature to frame the guidelines or parameters regarding the experience, qualifications and stature for appointment as Chairman/Members of the Public Service Commission and this law declared by this Court was binding on all Courts in India and hence, there was no necessity whatsoever for the Division Bench to make a reference to a Full Bench on the very same questions of law.
11. Mr. Rao submitted that this Court has held in Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India & Ors. [(1981) Supp.1 SCC 38] that a Court to which a reference is made cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not referred to it and yet the Full Bench of the High Court in this case has gone beyond the order of reference passed by the Division Bench and held that until a fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution is laid down, the procedure laid down by the Full Bench must be followed and has also declared the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Public Service Commission to be invalid. He also relied on the Punjab High Court Rules to argue that the Full Bench can be constituted only for answering the questions referred to it by the Division Bench of the High Court. He vehemently argued that these provisions of the Rules of the Punjab High Court have been violated and the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction. He next submitted that the direction given by the Full Bench in its order dated 01.08.2011 to produce the file containing the advice endered by the Chief Minister to the Governor is clearly unconstitutional and ultra vires of Article 163(3) of the Constitution and relied on the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh[(1961) 2 SCR 371] on this point.
12. Mr. Rao next submitted that Article 316 of the Constitution hasleft it to the discretion of the State Government to select and appoint the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission and having regard to the doctrine of separation of powers which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the High Court cannot direct the Government to exercise its discretion by following a procedure prescribed by the HighCourt. He cited Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 4 SCC 187], Suresh Seth v. Commissioner of Indore Municipal Corporation [(2005) 13 SCC 287], Divisional Manager, Aravali GolfClub & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 683] and Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. [(1989) 2 Supp. SCC 364] in support of the aforesaid submission. He submitted that the appointments to the constitutional offices, like the Attorney General, Advocate General, Comptroller & Auditor General, Chief Election Commissioner, Chairman and Members of the Union Public Service Commission and appointments to the topmost Executive posts, like the Chief Secretary or Director General of Police, has to be made within the discretion of the Government inasmuch as persons in whom the Government has confidence are appointed to the posts. He relied on E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(1974) 4 SCC 3]and State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Manas Kumar Chakraborty & Ors. [(2003) 2SCC 604] for this proposition.
13. Mr. Rao argued that in the absence of clear violation of statutory provisions and regulations laying down the procedure for appointment, the High Court has no jurisdiction even to issue a writ of quo warranto. In support of this argument, he relied on the decision of this Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors. [(2006) 11 SCC 731]. He submitted that this a fit case in which the order of the Division Bench dated 13.07.2011 and the interim orders as well as the judgment of the Full Bench dated 17.08.2011 and the final order of the Division Bench dated 17.08.2011 of the High Court quashing the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as well as consequential orders passed by the Government implementing the impugned judgment and order provisionally should be set aside by this Court.
14. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentNo.1 who had filed the writ petition before the High Court, referred to the proclamation by the Queen in Council on 1st November, 1858 to the Princes, Chiefs and the People of India to show that in the civil and military services of the East India Company persons with education, ability and integrity were to be recruited. He also referred to the report on the Public Service Commission, 1886-87 wherein the object of Public Service Commission was broadly stated to be to devise a scheme which may reasonably be hoped to possess the necessary elements of finality, and to do full justice to the claims of natives of India to higher and more extensive employment in the public service.
He also referred to the report of the Royal Commission on the superior services in India dated 27.03.1924 and in particular Chapter IV thereof on "The Public Service Commission" in which it is stated that wherever democratic institutions exist, experience has shown that to secure an efficient civil service it is essential to protect it from political or personal influences and to give it that position of stability and security which is vital to its successful working as the impartial and efficient instrument by which Governments, of whatever political complexion, may give effect to their policies and for this reason Public Service Commission should be detached so far as practicable from all political associations. He also referred to the speeches of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru and Mr. H.V. Kamath in the Constitutional Assembly and argued that to perform this difficult job of finding the best talent for the State Public Services without any political influence and other extraneous considerations the Public Service Commission must have a Chairman of great ability, independence and integrity.
15. Mr. Lalit further submitted that this Court has also in a number of pronouncements emphasized on the need to appoint eminent persons possessing a high degree of competence and integrity as Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission so as to inspire confidence in the public mind about the objectivity and impartiality of the selection to be made by the Public Service Commission. In this context he referred to the judgments of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1985) 4 SCC 417], in R/O Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [(2000) 4 SCC 309], Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2006) 11 SCC 356] and Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Haryana Public Service Commission and others In Re(supra).
16. Mr. Lalit submitted that Mr. Harish Dhanda may be eligible for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission but eligibility is not enough to be the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission. He submitted that the person who is eligible must also have some positive qualities such as experience, ability, character and integrity for being appointed as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission. He submitted that it is not only the personal integrity of the candidate who is to be appointed but also the integrity of the Pubic Service Commission as an institution which has to be borne in mind while making the appointment.
He referred to the decisions of this Court in Centre for PIL and Another v. Union of India and Another [(2011) 4 SCC 1] in which a distinction has been made between personal integrity of a candidate appointed as the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the integrity of the Central Vigilance Commission as an institution and it has been held that while recommending a name of the candidate for appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner, the question that one has to ask is whether the candidate recommended to function as the Central Vigilance Commissioner would be competent to function as a Central Vigilance Commissioner. He submitted that in the aforesaid case, this Court has also held that there was a difference between judicial review and merit review and has further held that the Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, are not concerned with the final decision of the Government taken on merit but are entitled to consider the integrity of the decision-making process.
17. Mr. Lalit submitted that the writ petitioner challenged the decision-making process of the Government in selecting and appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Public Service Commission on the ground that it was not an informed process of decision-making in as much as the State Government has not collected information and materials on whether Mr. Dhanda had the experience, ability and character for being appointed as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
He submitted that as a matter of fact the State Government was also not even informed of the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in its order dated15.11.2007 in O.A. No.495/PB/2007 had adversely commented on the conduct of Mr. Harish Dhanda. He explained that in the aforesaid O.A., Mr. Amit Misra, who belonged to the Indian Forest Service and was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Ropar in Punjab, had alleged that he had been transferred out of Ropar and posted as Division Forest Officer, Ferozpur, because of an incident which had occurred on 21.06.2007 on account of which he incurred the displeasure of Mr. Harish Dhanda, who was then the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab.
He alleged that Mr. Dhanda had been given the permission to stay at the Van Chetna Kendra/Forest Rest House at Pallanpur, District Ropar, for a few days, but later on he wanted to make the Forest Rest House as his permanent residence to which Mr. Amit Misra objected as the same was not permitted under the Rules and Mr. Amit Misra had directed the official in charge of the Rest House not to allow anybody to use the Rest House without getting permission and accordingly when Mr. Dhanda wanted the keys of the Rest House on22.06.2007 he was not given the keys of the Rest House and Mr. Dhanda recorded a note addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests narrating the entire incident and ensured that Mr. Amit Misra was posted out of Ropar by an order of transfer dated 31.07.2007.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, called for the official noting which led to the passing of the transfer order dated 31.07.2007 and recorded the finding that even though the Government decided not to allow the use of the Rest House as a permanent residence of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, yet Mr. Amit Misra, being a junior officer, became the victim of the annoyance of Mr. Harish Dhanda and with his political influence, the Forest Minister initiated the proposal for his transfer from Ropar, which was approved by the Chief Minister. Mr. Lalit submitted that this adverse finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a proceeding, in which Mr. Harish Dhanda was also a respondent, was not brought to the notice of the State Government when it took the decision to select and appoint Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
18. In reply to the submission of Mr. Rao that the Full Bench had no jurisdiction to expand the scope of the reference and should have limited itself to the questions referred to by the Division Bench by the order dated 13.07.2011, Mr. Lalit submitted that the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court would show that the entire case was referred to the Full Bench and, therefore, the Full Bench passed the order dated 17.08.2011 on all relevant aspects of the case. He cited the decision of this Court in Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. & Ors. [2006) 6 SCC 258] to argue that a reference can also be made of the entire case to a larger Bench and in such a case, the larger Bench has to decide the entire case and its jurisdiction is not limited to specific issues. He also referred to the Rules of the Punjab High Court to show that the Full Bench of the High Court can also be constituted to decide the entire case in important matters.
19. On the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ for quashing the appointment of a Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Lalitcited the decision in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, DWard, Kanpur & Anr. [AIR 1966 SC 81] in which a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that Article 226 of the Constitution is couched incomprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. He submitted that in this decision this Court has also explained that the High Court under Article226 of the Constitution can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England and can also issue other directions, orders or writs. He vehemently submitted that the contention on behalf of the appellants that the High Court could not have issued a writ/order quashing the selection and appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda is, therefore, notcorrect.
20. Mr. Lalit finally submitted that pursuant to the impugned orders of the Full Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court, the Search Committee was constituted by the Government for selection of the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Search Committee invited the names of eminent persons of impeccable integrity, caliber and administrative experience from all walks of life, to be considered for the post of the Chairman of Punjab Public Service Commission and thereafter the High Power Committee selected Lt. Gen. R.A. Sujlana (Retd.) who has been appointed by the State Government as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in December, 2011 and he has been functioning as such since then.
He submitted that the appointment of Lt. Gen. R.A. Sujlana is also not subject to orders passed by this Court and the news reports indicate that Lt. Gen. R.A. Sujlana has been an upright officer of the Indian Army and has wide administrative experience. He submitted that this is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the appointment of Lt. Gen. R.A. Sujlana as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission even if this Court finds infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the Full Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court.
21. Learned counsel for Mr. Harish Dhanda, adopted the arguments of Mr.P.P. Rao and also submitted that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.495/PB/2007 was filed before the Full Bench of the High Court on 01.08.2011 which was the last date of hearing. He submitted that Mr. Harish Dhanda, therefore, did not have any opportunity to reply before the Full Bench on the findings in the order of the Central AdministrativeTribunal.
22. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, adopted the arguments of Mr. P.P. Rao and further submitted that the Full Bench should not have added the State of Haryana as a party. He also submitted that the Full Bench should not have issued the directions in its order dated 17.08.2011 to the State of Haryana to adopt the same procedure for selection and appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission when the State of Haryana had nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Findings of the Court:
23. The first question that I have to decide is whether the High Court was right in entertaining the writ petition as a public interest litigation at the instance of the respondent No.1. I have perused the writ petition CWP No.11846 of 2011, which was filed before the High Court by the respondent No.1, and I find that in the first paragraph of the writ petition the respondent No.1 has stated that he was a public spirited person and that he had filed the writ petition for espousing the public interest and for the betterment of citizens of the State of Punjab. In the writ petition, the respondent No.1 has relied on the provisions of Articles315, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320 of the Constitution relating to Public Service Commissions to contend that the functions of the Public Service Commission are sensitive and important and it is very essential that a person, who is appointed as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, must possess outstanding and high degree educational qualifications and a great amount of experience in the field of selection, administration and recruitment and he must also be a man of integrity and impartiality.
The respondent No.1 has alleged in the writ petition that the State Government has not laid down any qualification for appointment to the post of Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission and is continuing to appoint persons to the post of Chairman of Public Service Commission on the basis of political affiliation. In the writ petition, the respondent No.1 has also given the example of Mr. Ravi Pal Singh Sidhu, who was appointed as the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission on the basis of political affiliation and the result was that during his period as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission, several cases of undeserving candidates being selected and appointed to the Public Service Commission in the State of Punjab came to light and investigations were carried out leading to filing of various criminal cases against the officials of the Public Service Commission as well Mr. Sidhu. The respondent No.1 has further stated in the writ petition that he has filed the writ petition after he read a news report titled: "MLA Dhanda to be new PPSC Chairperson".
He has stated in the writ petition that Mr. Harish Dhandawas an Advocate at Ludhiana before he ventured into politics and had unsuccessfully contested the Vidhan Sabha election before he was elected as MLA on the Shiromani Akali Dal ticket and that he had close political affiliation and affinity with high ups of the ruling party and that the ruling party in the State of Punjab has cleared his name for appointment as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission shortly. The respondent No.1 has also alleged in the writ petition various irregularities and illegalities committed by Mr. Harish Dhanda. He has further stated in the writ petition that his colleague has even sent a representation to the Governor of Punjab and the Chief Minister of Punjab against the proposed appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda. He has accordingly prayed in the writ petition for a mandamus to the State of Punjab to frame regulations governing the conditions of service and appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission and for an order restraining the State of Punjab from appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission.
On a reading of the entire writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 before the High Court, I have no doubt that the respondent No.1 has filed this writ petition for espousing the cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a view to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of ability and integrity so that recruitment to public services in the State of Punjab are from the best available talents and are fair and is not influenced by politics and extraneous considerations. Considering the averments in the writ petition, I cannot hold that the writ petition is just a service matter in which only the aggrieved party has the locus to initiate a legal action in the court of law.
The writ petition is a matter affecting interest of the general public in the State of Punjab and any member of the public could espouse the cause of the general public so long as his bonafides are not in doubt. Therefore, I do not accept the submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, that the writ petition was a service matter and the High Court was not right in entertaining the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the respondentNo.1. The decisions cited by Mr. Rao were in cases where this Court found that the nature of the matter before the Court was essentially a service matter and this Court accordingly held that in such service matters, the aggrieved party and not any third party can only initiate a legal action.
24. The next question that I have to decide is whether the Division Bench of the High Court, after having recorded a finding in its order dated13.07.2011 that the allegations of irregularities and illegalities against Mr. Harish Dhanda in the writ petition do not stand substantiated, should have made an academic reference to the Full Bench of the High Court. As I have noticed, the respondent No.1 had, in the writ petition, relied on the constitutional provisions in Articles 315, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320 of the Constitution to plead that the functions of the Public Service Commissions were of a sensitive and critical nature and hence the Chairman of the Public Service Commission must possess outstanding and high educational qualifications and a great amount of experience in the field of selection, administration and recruitment.
The respondent No.1 has further pleaded in the writ petition that the State Government had on an earlier occasion made an appointment of a Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission on the basis of political affiliation and this has resulted in selection and appointment of undeserving persons to public service for extraneous considerations. Though respondent No.1 had alleged in the writ petition some irregularities and illegalities on the part of Mr. Harish Dhanda, who was proposed to be appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission by the State Government, the writ petition was not founded only on such irregularities and illegalities alleged against Mr. Harish Dhanda. I n addition, the respondent No.1 had also alleged in the writ petition that Mr. Harish Dhanda was politically affiliated to the ruling party and was not selected for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission on the basis of his qualifications, experience or ability which are necessary for the post of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
Thus, even if the Division Bench had recorded a finding in the order dated13.07.2011 that the irregularities and illegalities pointed out in the writ petition against Mr. Harish Dhanda do not stand substantiated, the writ petition could not be disposed of with the said finding only. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, thought it necessary to make a reference to the Full Bench and has given its reasons for the reference to the Full Bench in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of its order dated 13.07.2011, which are quoted here in below: "6. Even though, Article 316 of the Constitution does not prescribe any particular procedure, having regard to the purpose and nature of appointment, it cannot be assumed that power of appointment need not be regulated by any procedure.
It is undisputed that person to be appointed must have competence and integrity. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R/o Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2000) 4 SCC 309, Ram Kumar Kashyap and another v. Union of India and another, AIR 2010 SC 1151 and in re v. Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and others (2010) 13 SCC 586 : (2010) 6 SLR 717. 7. If it is so, question is how such persons are to be identified and selected and whether in the present case, procedure adopted is valid and if not, effect thereof. We are of the view that these questions need to be considered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. Accordingly, we refer the matter to a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges.
25. "25. It will be clear from the Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated13.07.2011 quoted above that the Division Bench of the High Court found that Article 316 of the Constitution, which provides for appointment of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission by the Governor, does not prescribe any particular procedure and took the view that, having regard to the purpose and nature of appointment, it cannot be assumed that power of appointment need not be regulated by any procedure. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the further view that the persons to be appointed must have competence and integrity, but how such persons are to be identified and selected must be considered by a Bench of three Judges and accordingly referred the matter to the three Judges. The Division Bench also referred the question to the larger Bench of three Judges as to whether the procedure adopted in the present case for appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission was valid and if not, what is the effect of not following the procedure. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the submission of Mr. Rao that the Division Bench of the High Court having found in its order dated 13.07.2011 that the irregularities and illegalities pointed out in the writ petition against Mr. Harish Dhanda are unsubstantiated, should not have made an academic reference to the larger Bench of the High Court.
26. I may now consider the submission of Mr. Rao that this Court in the case of Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC In Re (supra) had already declared the law that it is for Parliament to frame the guidelines or parameters regarding the qualifications, experience or stature for appointment as Chairman/Members of the Public Service Commission and hence it was not necessary for the Division Bench to make a reference to a Full Bench on the very same question of law. In Mehar Singh Saini Chairman, HPSC In Re (supra), this Court noticed that the provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution do not lay down any qualification, educational or otherwise, for appointment to the Commission as Chairman and Members and made the following observations in Para 85 of the judgment as reported in the SCC: "Desirability, if any, of providing specific qualification or experience for appointment as Chairman/members of the Commission is a function of Parliament.
The guidelines or parameters, if any, including that of stature, if required to be specified, are for the appropriate Government to frame. This requires expertise in the field, data study and adoption of the best methodology by the Government concerned to make appointments to the Commission on merit, ability and integrity. Neither is such expertise available with the Court nor will it be in consonance with the constitutional scheme that this Court should venture into reading such qualifications into Article 316 or provide any specific guidelines controlling the academic qualification, experience and stature of an individual who is proposed to be appointed to this coveted office. Of course, while declining to enter into such arena, we still feel constrained to observe that this is a matter which needs the attention of the Parliamentarians and quarters concerned in the Governments.
One of the factors, which has persuaded us to make this observation, is the number of cases which have been referred to this Court by the President of India in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution in recent years. A large number of inquiries are pending before this Court which itself reflects that all is not well with the functioning of the Commissions."The observations of this Court in the aforesaid case of Mehar Singh Saini Chairman, HPSC In Re (supra) relate to qualification and experience for appointment as Chairman/Members of the Commission and have nothing to do with the questions relating to the procedure for identifying persons of integrity and competence to be appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, which were referred by the Division Bench of the High Court to the Full Bench by the order dated 13.07.2011. Mr. Rao is, therefore, not right in his submission that in view of the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC In Re (supra), there was no necessity for the Division Bench to make a reference to the Full Bench by the order dated13.07.2011.
27. I may next deal with the contention of Mr. Rao that the Full Bench exceeded its jurisdiction by enlarging the scope of reference and deciding matters which were not referred to it by the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench. Rule 4 of the Punjab High Court Rules reads as follows: "Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges."I have perused Rules 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Punjab High Court Rules which relate to Full Bench and I do not find therein any provision which provides what matters a Full Bench comprising three Judges of the High Court will decide. Hence, the Division Bench of the High Court has the jurisdiction to decide a case, unless otherwise provided by law or by a special order of the Chief Justice and the jurisdiction of a Full Bench to decide matters will flow either from the order of the Chief Justice of the High Court or from the order of the Division Bench which makes a reference to the Full Bench. In the present case, there is no order of the Chief Justice making a reference but only the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court making a reference to the Full Bench of three Judges of the High Court. Thus, I have to look at the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division Bench to find out whether the Division Bench referred only specific questions to the Full Bench as contended by Mr. Rao or referred the entire case to the Full Bench as contended by Mr. Lalit.
28. On a close scrutiny of Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated13.07.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court which are extracted above, I find that the Division Bench of the High Court has referred only specific questions to the Full Bench: how persons of competence and integrity are to be identified and selected for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission and if the procedure adopted for such appointment in the present case was not valid, the effect thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court has made it clear in Para 7 of its order dated 13.07.2001 that "these questions need to be considered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges". I, therefore, do not agree with Mr. Lalit that the Division Bench referred the entire case to the Full Bench by the order dated 13.07.2011. I further find that although the aforesaid specific questions relating to the procedure for identifying persons of competence and integrity for appointment as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission only were referred by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Full Bench, instead of deciding these specific questions referred to it, has given directions to the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana to follow a particular procedure for appointment of Members and Chairman of the Public Service Commission till such time a fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution is made. I, therefore, agree with Mr. Rao that the Full Bench of the High Court has decided issues which were not referred to it by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment dated 17.08.2011 of the Full Bench of the High Court was without jurisdiction.
29. I may next consider the contention of Mr. Rao that as the Constitution has left it to the discretion of the State Government to select and appoint the Chairman and Members of a State Public Commission, the High Court cannot direct the Government to exercise its discretion by following a procedure prescribed by the High Court. Mr. Rao has relied on Article 316 of the Constitution and the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.[(1978) 1 SCC 405]. Article 316 of the Constitution of India is quoted herein below: "316. Appointment and term of office of members.-
(1) The Chairman and other members of a Public Service Commission shall be appointed, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, by the President, and in the case of a State Commission, by the Governor of the State: Provided that as nearly as may be one-half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, and in computing the said period of ten years any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which a person has held office under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State shall be included.
(1A) If the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes vacant or if any such Chairman is by reason of absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office, those duties shall, until some persons appointed under clause (1) to the vacant office has entered on the duties thereof or, as the case may be, until the Chairman has resumed his duties, be performed by such one of the other members of the Commission as the President, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor of the State in the case of a State in the case of a State Commission, may appoint for the purpose.
(2) A member of a Public Service Commission shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains, in the case of the Union Commission, the age of sixty-five years, and in the case of a State Commission or a Joint Commission, the age of sixty-two years, whichever is earlier: Provided that -
(a) a member of a Public Service Commission may, by writing under his hand addressed, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, to the President, and in the case of a State Commission, to the Governor of the State, resign his office;
(b) a member of a Public Service Commission may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (1) or clause (3) of Article 317.
(3) A person who holds office as a member of a Public Service Commission shall, on the expiration of his term of office, be ineligible for re-appointment to that office."A reading of Article 316 of the Constitution would show that it confers power on the Governor of the State to appoint the Chairman and other Members of a Public Service Commission.
It has been held by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (supra) that an authority has implied powers to make available and carry into effect powers expressly conferred on it. Thus, under Article316 of the Constitution, the Governor of a State has not only the express power of appointing the Chairman and other Members of Public Service Commission but also the implied powers to lay down the procedure for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission and the High Court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution usurp this constitution al power of the Government and lay down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission. The Full Bench of the High Court, therefore, could not have laid down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Haryana Public Service Commission by the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2011.
30. Having held that the Full Bench of the High Court has in its judgment dated 17.08.2011 acted beyond its jurisdiction and has usurped the constitutional power of the Governor in laying down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, I have to set aside the judgment dated 17.08.2011 of the Full Bench of the High Court. Thereafter, either of the two courses are open to me: remand the matter to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law or decide the writ petition on merits. To cut short the litigation, I proceed to decide the writ petition on merits instead of remanding the matter to the High Court.
31. This Court has had the occasion to consider the qualities which a person should have for being appointed as Chairman and Member of Public Service Commission and has made observations after considering the nature of the functions entrusted to the Public Service Commissions under Article320 of the Constitution. In Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through P.N. Bhagwati, J, observed:
"We would therefore like to strongly impress upon every State Government to take care to see that its Public Service Commission is manned by competent, honest and independent persons of outstanding ability and high reputation who command the confidence of the people and who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous considerations from discharging their duty of making selections strictly on merit."In R/O Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission(supra), Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. speaking for a three Judge Bench, cautioned: "The credibility of the institution of a Public Service Commission is founded upon the faith of the common man in its proper functioning.
The faith would be eroded and confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or the members of the Commission act subjectively and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from the Chairman and members of the Commission. The Commission must act fairly, without any pressure or influence from any quarter, unbiased and impartially, so that he society does not lose confidence in the Commission. The high constitutional trustees, like the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission must forever remain vigilant and conscious of these necessary adjuncts."Despite these observations of this Court, the State Government of Punjab appointed Mr. Ravi Pal Singh Sidhu as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002 and as has been noted in the judgment of S.B. Sinha, J. of this Court in Inder preet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (supra), allegations were made against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous considerations including monetary consideration during the period 1998 to2001 and raids were conducted in his house on more that one occasion and a large sum of money was recovered from his custody and his relatives and FIRs were lodged and criminal cases initiated by the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab.
Writing a separate judgment in the aforesaid case, Dalveer Bhandari, J, had to comment: "This unfortunate episode teaches us an important lesson that before appointing the constitutional authorities, there should be a thorough and meticulous inquiry and scrutiny regarding their antecedents. Integrity and merit have to be properly considered and evaluated in the appointments to such high positions. It is an urgent need of the hour that in such appointments absolute transparency is required to be maintained and demonstrated. The impact of the deeds and misdeeds of the constitutional authorities (who are highly placed), affect a very large number of people for a very long time, therefore, it is absolutely imperative that only people of high integrity, merit rectitude and honesty are appointed to these constitutional positions.
"Considering this experience of the damage to recruitment to public services caused by appointing a person lacking in character as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission in the State of Punjab, when the respondent No.1 brought to the notice of the High Court through the writ petition that the State Government of Punjab proposed to appoint Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, only because of his political affiliation, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly entertained the writ petition as a public interest litigation.
The Division Bench of the High Court, however, found that no procedure for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission has been laid down in Article316 of the Constitution and therefore posed the question in Paragraphs 6and 7 of its order dated 13.07.2011 as to what should be the procedure for identifying and selecting persons of integrity and competence for appointment of Chairman of the Public Service Commission and referred the question to a larger Bench of three Judges. I have already held that it is for the Governor who is the appointing authority under Article 316 of the Constitution to lay down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, but this is not to say that in the absence of any procedure laid down by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission under Article 316 of the Constitution, the State Government would have absolute discretion in selecting and appointing any person as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission.
Even where a procedure has not been laid down by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, the State Government has to select only persons with integrity and competence for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, because the discretion vested in the State Government under Article 316 of the Constitution is impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is vested and the purposes are discernible from the functions of the Public Service Commission's enumerated in Article 320 of the Constitution.
Under clause (1) of Article 320 of the Constitution, the State Public Service Commission has the duty to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. Under clause (3) of Article320, the State Public Service Commission has to be consulted by the State Government on matters relating to recruitment and appointment to the civil services and civil posts in the State, on disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of a State in a civil capacity, on claims by and in respect of a person who is serving under the State Government towards costs of defending a legal proceeding, on claims for award of pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the State Government and other matters. In such matters, the State Public Service Commission is expected to act with independence from the State Government and with fairness, besides competence and maturity acquired through knowledge and experience of public administration.
32. I, therefore, hold that even though Article 316 does not specify the aforesaid qualities of the Chairman of a Public Service Commission, these qualities are amongst the implied relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration by the Government while determining the competency of the person to be selected and appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission under Article 316 of the Constitution. Accordingly, if these relevant factors are not taken into consideration by the State Government while selecting and appointing the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Court can hold the selection and appointment as not in accordance with the Constitution.
To quote De Smith's Judicial Review, Sixth Edition: "If the exercise of a discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account, or by the disregard of relevant considerations required to be taken into account (expressly or impliedly), a court will normally hold that the power has not been validly exercised. (Page 280) If the relevant factors are not specified (e.g. if the power is merely to grant or refuse a licence, or to attach such conditions as the competent authority thinks fit), it is for the courts to determine whether the permissible considerations are impliedly restricted, and, if so, to what extent (Page 282)"In M/s Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa and Others (AIR 1975 SC 2226), A. Alagiriswamy writing the judgment for a three Judge Bench of this Court explained this limitation on the power of the Executive in the following words: "The Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The Courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully".
33. Mr. Rao, however, relied on a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (supra) in which it was held that the post of Chief Secretary is a highly sensitive post and the Chief Secretary is a lynchpin in the administration and for smooth functioning of the administration, there should be complete rapport and understanding between the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister and, therefore, it is only the person in whom the Chief Minister has complete confidence who can be appointed as Chief Secretary of the State and hence the Chief Secretary of a State cannot be displaced from his post on the ground that his appointment was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution.
Mr. Rao also relied on the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Manas Kumar Chakraborty & Ors. (supra) in which it was similarly observed that the post of DG and IG Police was a selection post and it is not open to the courts to sit in appeal over the view taken by the appointing authority with regard to the choice of the officer to be appointed as DG and IG Police and for such selection, the Government of the State must play a predominant role. I am of the considered opinion that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, who along with its other members has to perform his duties under Article 320 of the Constitution with independence from the State Government cannot be equated with the Chief Secretary or the DG and IG Police, who are concerned solely with the administrative functions and have to work under the State Government. To ensure this independence of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission, clause (3) of Article 316 of the Constitution provides that a person shall, on expiration of his term of office be ineligible for reappointment to that office.
34. Mr. Rao has also relied on the decision of this Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors. (supra) to argue that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to only cases where the appointment to an office is contrary to the statutory rules. He also distinguished the decision of this Court in Centre for PIL and Another v. Union of India and Another (supra) cited by Mr. Lalit and submitted that in that case the Court had found that the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and for this reason, this Court quashed the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. I have already held that besides express restrictions in a statute or the Constitution, there can be implied restrictions in a statute and the Constitution and the statutory or the constitutional authority cannot in breach of such implied restrictions exercise its discretionary power.
Moreover, Article 226 of the Constitution vests in the High Court the power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is, thus, not confined to only writ of quo warranto but to other directions, orders or writs. In Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur & Anr. (supra),K. Subba Rao, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench, has explained the wide scope of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution thus:
"This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them.
That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure.
Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself. To say this is not to say that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this Article. Some limitations are implicit in the article and others may be evolved to direct the article through defined channels. This interpretation has been accepted by this Court in T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa, 1955-1 SCR 250: (AIR 1954 SC 440) and Irani v. State of Madras, 1962 (2) SCR 169: (AIR 1961 SC 1731)."Therefore, I hold that the High Court should not normally, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere with the discretion of the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, but in an exceptional case if it is shown that relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the Constitution have not been considered by the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, the High Court can invoke its wide and extra-ordinary powers under Article 226of the Constitution and quash the selection and appointment to ensure that the discretion of the State Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.
35. Coming now to the facts of the present case, I find that the Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 13.07.2011 has already held that the irregularities and illegalities alleged against Mr. Harish Dhanda have not been substantiated. I must, however, enquire whether the State Government took into consideration the relevant factors relating to his competency to act as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission. We had, therefore, passed orders on 01.08.2012 calling upon the State of Punjab to produce before us the material referred to in para69 of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court on the basis of which Mr. Harish Dhanda was selected for appointment as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2012,the State Government has produced the files in which the selection and appointment of Mr. Harish Dhanda was processed by the State Government.
At page 26 of the file on the subject "Appointment of Chairman of P.P.S.C. -Mr. S.K. Sinha, IAS, Mr. Harish Rai Dhanda", I find that a bio-data in one sheet has been placed at page 41 of the file, which reads as under: "BIO DATA Harish Rai Dhanda S/o Sh. Kulbhushan Rai Resident: The Retreat, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Date of Birth: 15th May, 1960 Attained Bachelor in Arts from SCD Government College, Ludhiana, Punjab University, (1979). Attained Bachelor in Laws from Law College, Punjab University (1982). Registered with Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana as Advocate in 1982. Practiced Law at District Courts, Ludhiana from 1982 to 2007. Elected as President of District Bar Association, Ludhiana for seven terms."Besides the aforesaid bio-data, there is a certificate dated 06.07.2011given by the Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, certifying that Mr. Harish Rai Dhanda, MLA, has resigned from the membership of the 13th Punjab Legislative Assembly with effect from 06.07.2011 and that his resignation has been accepted by the Speaker.
The aforesaid materials indicate that Mr. Harish Dhanda had B.A. and LL.B Degrees and was practicing as an Advocate at the District Courts in Ludhiana and had been elected as the President of the District Bar Association, Ludhiana for seven terms and has been member of the Legislative Assembly. These materials do not indicate that Mr. Harish Dhanda had any knowledge or experience whatsoever either in administration or in recruitment nor do these materials indicate that Mr. Harish Dhanda had the qualities to perform the duties as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution which I have discussed in this judgment.
