Asking what will be the fate of a State where a Public Service Commission of Class 10-pass persons interview Class 1 officer-candidates, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay a Madras High Court decision to quash the appointment of 11 members, including a “prematurely retired” district judge, of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) by the earlier Jayalalithaa government.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao directed the Tamil Nadu government to conduct fresh selection of the TNPSC members after a “meaningful, deliberative process.”
The apex court specifically ordered that the retired district judge in question will be ineligible for fresh selection. It even asked why the Tamil Nadu government chose to appoint him to the 14-member TNPSC when the judiciary had retired him at 58 without offering him extension of service till the age of 60. Chief Justice Khehar noted that only “deadwood” are not given the two-year extension.
The Bench noted how the entire appointment process of the 11 members was completed in a “single shot, in one day.” Chief Justice Khehar observed that the manner in which the State used its prerogative to make the appointments was “nothing but arbitrary, with no due deliberation.”
Chief Justice Khehar said just because the Constitution leaves it to the State’s wisdom to appoint its administrative officers and devises no procedure whatsoever, it does not mean that such appointments can be made arbitrarily and without consideration.
At one point, the Chief Justice cut short the justifications made by Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the T.N. government.
“Mr. Rohatgi, you serve society and not some State government. Remember always, that is your role,” Chief Justice Khehar reprimanded the top government law officer of the country.
The 11 TNPSC members were appointed on January 31, 2016. Writ petitions were filed in the Madras High Court through senior advocate P. Wilson challenging the appointments.
The High Court, on December 22, 2016, concluded that the appointment of the 11 commenced on January 30, 2016 and ended the next day, meaning there was no application of mind by the State government. The Tamil Nadu government had appealed against the High Court’s decision.
Mr. Rohatgi said the posts in the TNPSC had started falling vacant since 2013, and appointment of the 11 members was made after considering a total of 122 candidates from 2013 to 2016. “The High Court made an error in thinking that the State committed the physically impossible task of appointing them all in one day… How is that possible?” Mr. Rohatgi asked.
Mr. Rohatgi said the 11 members were well-qualified people like senior lawyers, academicians and a judge.
“But the High Court has gone the whole hog to say there was absolutely no procedure and no consideration. Your Advocate General says everything… both recommendation and acceptance… was done in one day. This is arbitrary. These members of the PSC shall select Class 1 officers… if you do not have bona fide people worthy of their jobs, where will your State go? You must repeat the process of appointments!” Chief Justice Khehar asked Mr. Rohatgi.
Mr. Rohatgi said it was the prerogative of the government to appoint the PSC members, who are constitutional functionaries. The court cannot dictate terms to it. “You [the Supreme Court] have to go by the Constitution. This is not for the court to decide,” he submitted.
“Just because the Constitution does not prescribe anything does not mean you [State government] do nothing. Nobody is prescribing the levels of calibre and integrity for you… but you have to be satisfied that the person is suitable,” Chief Justice Khehar said.
Pitching in, Justice Rao addressed Mr. Rohatgi: “Just imagine, these PSC members will be on interview committees. They should be sufficiently educated to interview Class 1 officer-candidates. They cannot be just Class 10 pass. We are just saying they should be sufficiently educated, that is all.”
