AJAY DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, filed as PIL, takes exception to the appointment of Mr. R. Parshuram as State Election Commissioner of the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Departmental Order, dated 17-9-2013. Only three grounds have been urged before us. First ground is that, in absence of Rules regarding procedure for appointment of State Election Commissioner, it is imperative for the Competent Authority to observe fairness and transparency in the appointment process to comply with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in absence thereof, the appointment process will be vitiated.

(2.) It is indisputable that the State Election Commissioner is appointed by the Governor, in view of Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. The State Election Commissioner is appointed for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats in the State. No Rules have been framed by the State for the procedure to be followed for appointment of the State Election Commissioner. As aforesaid, there is neither provision in the Constitution nor any enactment or Rule in place, providing for the manner in which process to appoint the State Election Commissioner should be followed. That can be traced to Article 243-K of the Constitution, which postulates that State Election Commissioner be appointed by the Governor. In the present case, it is common ground that the term of the out going State Election Commissioner had expired on 16-9-2013. As a result, the Chief Minister made recommendation to the Governor to appoint Mr. R. Parshuram as the State Election Commissioner for the State of Madhya Pradesh, on 17-9-2013. The Governor, on the same day, approved the said recommendation; and as a consequence whereof, the impugned Departmental Order, dated 17-9-2013 came to be issued.

(3.) Reverting to the grievance of the petitioner, the question whether this appointment process can be said to be non-transparent, unfair, arbitrary or otherwise hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we agree with the submission of respondents that the subject appointment by the Governor, cannot be treated as appointment to any office under the State as such. For, the Election Commission is an autonomous body, created for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats in the State. For that reason, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Comptroller & Auditor General Vs. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, 2003 2 SCC 349, Paragraphs 4 and 12 thereof in particular, will be of no avail. Further, since it is not an employment or appointment to any office under the State as such, the question of following procedure relating to such employment or appointment to office under the State by giving advertisement, inviting applications or public notice etc. will have no application at all. It is, indeed, the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority and finally the decision of the Governor to appoint a person as State Election Commissioner, that ought to prevail. The fact that the entire process has been concluded in one day cannot be the basis to hold that the decision so taken is vitiated, unless something more is attributed.