SOMANATHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these batch of Writ Petitions is whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under S. 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to appoint a State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners of the Kerala Information Commission, suffers from any legal infirmity. The above Writ Petitions, except W.P.(C). No. 9042/2016 and 9278/2016, are filed by the candidates who have either applied to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioners. W.P.(C). Nos. 9042/2016 and 9278/2016 are filed by persons, who claim to be human right activists and information activists, challenging the above recommendation.

(2.) The Government on 02.12.2015 published a notification inviting application for four posts of State Information Commissioners. The last date for receipt of the applications was 15.12.2015. Thereafter, another notification was published on 21.01.2016 inviting application to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and one State Information Commissioner. The last date of receipt of the applications was 20.02.2016. The Committee, which was constituted pursuant to the notification dated 02.12.2015 was also entrusted with the selection of candidates based on the notification dated 21.01.2016. The Committee met on 24.02.2016. As mandated, the Committee constituted under S. 15 of the Right to Information Act is comprised of the Chief Minister as the Chair Person, the Leader of Opposition in Legislative Assembly and a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister. In the meeting held on 24.02.2016, the Leader of the Opposition wanted to have the preparation of a shortlist based on the experience and criteria of candidates. The Opposition Leader suggested that the shortlist should contain three persons for a single post and it should be based on the criteria referred under S. 15 of the Right to Information Act and as expounded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s. Namit Sharma : (2013 (4) KLT SN1 (C. No. 1) SC : (2013) 10 SCC 359). Thereafter, a shortlist was prepared and placed in meeting held on the next day, i.e., 25.02.2016. In the said meeting, the Opposition Leader raised an objection. The objection is inter alia regarding the procedure as well as the criteria for shortlisting the candidates and also related to the authority of the committee to recommend the State Chief Information Commissioner and the other State Information Commissioners pursuant to the subsequent notification.

(3.) The challenge in this Writ Petition essentially is regarding non consideration of the petitioners, who were applicants as well as the proprietary of the selection process. The majority decision of the committee favoured recommendation of Shri. Vincent M. Paul, the fifth respondent in W.P.(C). No. 7665/2016, as the State Chief Information Commissioner and the remaining party respondents in the said Writ Petition as the State Information Commissioners. The files were sent to His Excellency, the Governor of Kerala, to make appointments. However, noting the factum of an order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 7665/2016, the files have been returned.'