ROYCE CHIRAYIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions pertain to the appointment of State Information Commissioners in the Kerala State Information Commission.

(2.) The undisputed facts are the following:

(3.) The decision of the selection committee constituted under Section 15(3) of the Act was challenged in the writ petitions referred to above mainly on the grounds that the file does not disclose the criteria adopted by the selection committee for short listing the applicants; that there has been no consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates and that the decision of the committee is not supported by reasons. The State opposed the challenge against the decision of the selection committee, contending that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in this context. This Court dismissed all the writ petitions. Ext.P3 in WP(C).No.18722 of 2016 is the judgment in the said batch of writ petitions. In Ext.P3 judgment, it was found by this Court that the criteria for selection to the posts are only that the candidate shall be a person of 'eminence' in public life with wide knowledge and experience in other disciplines referred to in Section 15(5) of the Act and that the individual integrity of the candidate should match the institutional competence of the Office of the Information Commissioner. It was also found by this Court in the said judgment that the intention of the legislature is to use the primacy of experience and the wisdom of the statesmen for such recommendation rather than a selection in the like manner of recruitment of an employee. It was further found by this Court that the selection committee has the freedom to choose a person who fulfils the twin criteria referred to above and therefore there is no necessity for the selection committee to explain the exclusion of other candidates. It was further found by this Court that there is no requirement to demonstrate comparative evaluation of the candidates to the satisfaction of all and that therefore if the recommended candidates would satisfy the twin criteria referred to above, it is not the province of the Court to prevail upon the wisdom of the selection committee by making comparative evaluation of the merits of the candidates.