HEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by the medium of this petition, challenges the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Member of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission dated 5.5.2017 with a further prayer to direct the respondent/State to frame guidelines and parameters for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission').

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner being a law student, went through the constitutional provisions pertaining to the appointment of Chairman and Members of the Commission and also the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. The petitioner accordingly, applied for information under the Right to Information Act , 2005 and was shocked to see that the constitutional provisions as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been violated while making selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Member of the Commission. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 does not fulfil requisite constitutional requirement for being appointed as Member of the Commission.

(3.) To substantiate his stand, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to the constitutional provisions, i.e., Article 316 , relating to appointment and terms of office of Member; Article 317 , the removal and suspension of a Member of a Commission; Article 318 which empowers the State Government to determine number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service; Article 319 which contains the prohibition as to holding of office by the Members of Commission on seizing of such Member; and Article 320 , which lays down functions of Commissions. The petitioner has also referred to law settled by the Supreme Court in (1985) 4 SCC 417, (2000) 4 SCC 309, (2006) 11 SCC 356, (2009) 5 SCC 65, (2010) 13 SCC 586 and (2013) 5 SCC 1.