It has been averred in the petition that the Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) positioned the matter earlier than the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh for deciding for the appointment of a suitable character as a Member of the Commission. Thereafter the matter was located before His Excellency, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Smt. Meera Walia respondent No. three becomes appointed as Member of the Commission. It is said that no other man or woman than respondent No. three changed into considered for appointment as Member of the Commission and no inquiry with recognize to her integrity, honesty, credibility or qualities turned into ever undertaken. The selection to employ respondent No.3 as Member become taken best by Hon’ble Chief Minister and now not by State Government and no deliberative Steps turned into ever undertaken by using the State Government for the Appointment in PSC. It is further said that one FIR No. 6 of 2008 dated 22.5.2008 became registered towards respondent No. 3 and her husband Sh. Subhash Ahluwalia in State Vigilance and Anti­Corruption Bureau, Police Station Shimla, beneath Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a challan below Section 173 of Cr.P.C, 1973. The petitioner being a law student, went through the constitutional provisions referring to the appointment of Chairman and Members of the Commission and also the judgments rendered employing the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. The petitioner accordingly, carried out for data under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and became stunned to look that the constitutional provisions as properly as law laid down through the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been violated while making selection and appointment of respondent No. three as a Member of the Commission. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 does now not fulfill the requisite constitutional requirement for being appointed as Member of the Commission.



The question regarding Ms. Walia’s appointment also failed for material suppression of facts via the Petitioner. The court mentioned that even as the Petitioner had produced a replica of the FIR alleging that Ms. Walia had crook antecedents, he did now not divulge as to how he was given the stated papers. “It’s miles presumed that the petitioner has no longer come to the Court with smooth palms and has suppressed the material data with a similar presumption that the petitioner has been made to use by using a few interested persons against respondent No. 3,” the court stated. Moreover, the high court of Himachal Pradesh found that the Petitioner had singled out Ms. Walia’s appointment and had no longer challenged the appointment of different persons, who were appointed as Chairman and Members via adopting the equal procedure, thus strengthening the presumption. “The petitioner has additionally extracted the provisions of Articles 316 and 317 of the Constitution of India which display that the petitioner is/changed into aware of the procedure to be adopted via the Constitutional Machinery and additionally privy to the judgments rendered through the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point. Still, he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3 which shows that he’s having an unwell will in opposition to respondent No. three or has been used by a few involved man or woman towards respondent 3,” the courtroom stated.


    On 1st of January 2020, the Himachal Pradesh High Court requested the State Government to take urgent Steps to frame memorandum of procedure for administrative guidelines and parameters for selecting and Appointment of Chairperson and Members to the Public Service Commission (PSC), with a purpose to take away the opportunity of arbitrary appointments. The bench of Chief Justice L. Narayana Swamy and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua cited that the Governor of the State has “implied powers” to put down the system for appointment of Chairman and Members of the Commission. The observations had been made in a petition questioning the order of appointment of Ms. Meera Walia (Respondent No. 3) as Member of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The Petitioner had additionally prayed for Steps or guidelines to the State to border suggestions for making an appointment to the Public Service Commission (PSC). Stating that the apex court of that State (Himachal Pradesh) could not usurp the stated “constitutional power” of the Government, the bench said, “the State Government and the Governor have an extensive discretion within the technique to be followed. We hope and agree that the State of Himachal Pradesh must step in and take urgent steps to frame memorandum of manner, administrative recommendations and parameters for the choice and appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission so that the opportunity of arbitrary appointments is eliminated.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *