Writ Appeal Nos. 1220 and 1225 of 2016. Case: Karem Sivajee Vs J. Prasad Babu and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberWrit Appeal Nos. 1220 and 1225 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Vedula Venkataramana, Learned Senior Counsel for K. Sarvabhouma Rao, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Learned Advocate General, Learned Government Pleader, V.V. Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel for V.Y. Prabhuvu, Learned Counsel
JudgesRamesh Ranganathan, Actg. C.J. and A. Shankar Narayana, J.
IssueAndhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 - Sections 10(1), 10(2), 11, 11(2), 12, 18, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(g), 2(h), 3, 3(1), 3(2), 4, 4(2), 5, 5(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(4); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 11(1), 11(3), 12, 17, 18(1), 195, 21, 3, 3(1), 4, 4(2...
Judgement DateJanuary 06, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

Ramesh Ranganathan, Actg. C.J.

  1. Both W.A. Nos. 1220 and 1225 of 2016 are preferred by the 4th respondent and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in W.P. No. 14299 of 2016, respectively aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2016 setting aside the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, vide G.O.Ms. No. 45 dated 13.04.2016, on grounds of illegality and procedural impropriety. The parties in these appeals shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 14299 of 2016.

  2. The petitioners, five in number, filed W.P. No. 14299 of 2016 to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 45 dated 13.04.2016 appointing the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter called the "Commission") as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the 1st respondent to empanel candidates for being considered for appointment as the Chairman of the Commission.

  3. G.O.Ms. No. 44 dated 13.04.2016 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in the exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (hereinafter called the 2003 Act) reconstituting the Commission. On the very same day, G.O.Ms. No. 45 dated 13.04.2016 was issued nominating the 4th respondent as the Chairman of the reconstituted Commission. The term of the Chairman was to be for a period of three years from the date he assumed office or until he attained the age of sixty five years, whichever was earlier. G.O.Ms. No. 45 dated 13.04.2016, whereby the 4th respondent was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission, was subjected to challenge in W.P. No. 12499 of 2016, resulting in the order under appeal being passed.

  4. In W.P. No. 14299 of 2016 the Learned Single Judge framed the following five points for consideration:

    (1) Whether the appointment of the Chairman, under Section 5(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, could be based on the 'pleasure doctrine' or whether prescription of a fixed term in Section 6 made the said principle inapplicable?

    (2) Whether absence of Rules under Section 18 of the Act gave the 1st respondent the power to make appointment to the post of Chairman as per it's free will and choice?

    (3) Whether the selection of an 'eminent person' in clause 5(1)(a) should be based on objective criteria, and whether the person should at least satisfy the minimum criteria mentioned in clause 5(1)(b) for appointing ordinary Members of the Commission?

    (4) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file the Writ Petition?

    (5) Whether appointment of the 4th respondent, as the Chairman of the Commission, required reconsideration in the light of the provisions of the Act?

  5. On point No. 1 the Learned Single Judge, on an analysis of the provisions of the Act, held that there was nothing in any of the provisions of the Act, or any Rule, for simple termination of a person nominated as the Chairman; no Rule could be made for simple termination without notice, as Section 6 of the Act only prescribed the grounds of disqualification to be enumerated in the Rules; the 2003 Act was a piece of social legislation to safeguard the interests of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes; the 2003 Act sought to implement the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution relating to untouchability; it was made in furtherance of Article 38 of the Constitution to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of all the people, and for achieving equal justice under Article 39-A; it was also meant to promote the education and economic interests of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes under Article 46; and, therefore, appointment of members and the Chairman of the Commission did not attract the pleasure doctrine. The Learned Single Judge further held that the 2003 Act required an eminent person to be appointed as the Chairman on the basis of objective criteria/material in view of the language of Section 5 of the Act; and the pleasure doctrine could not be applied when the 2003 Act prescribed a fixed term, but did not provide for disqualification or for summary termination.

  6. On point No. 2, the Learned Single Judge held that, even in the absence of Rules having been made under the Act, the 1st respondent could not appoint any person at its will and choice to the important post of Chairman of the Commission; the High Court could exercise its powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to ensure that the State Government exercised its discretion properly; even in the absence of prescription of parameters by the Statute, some parameters could be implemented in the process of selecting persons such as the Chairman of the Commission; the question as to eminence and integrity of the person to be appointed as the Chairman, and his record of service to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, were important factors which were needed to be considered before a person is appointed to the post of Chairman of the Commission; the mere fact that the body in question only made recommendations to the Government did not mean that its functions were not important, and persons could be appointed as per the whims and fancies of the Government; absence of a challenge to Section 5(1)(a) of the 2003 Act did not enable the 1st respondent to make appointment to the post of Chairman as per the sweet will and pleasure of the political executive; in the context of the responsibilities conferred, under Section 12 of the 2003 Act, on the Chairman and members of the Commission, parameters such as integrity of the candidate, and his record of service to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, were implied in the very nature of duties entrusted to the Commission; necessary guidance must be provided by Rules to make Section 5(1)(a) workable and meaningful; and absence of Rules framed under the 2003 Act, in respect of qualifications for appointment of a Chairman, did not permit the 1st respondent to appoint a person to the post of Chairman of the Commission as per its free will and choice.

  7. On point No. 3, the Learned Single Judge held that the words "eminent person" in Section 5(1)(a) required the person to be far above ordinary, i.e., far above those who could be appointed as members of the Commission who were men of integrity; they should stand head and shoulders above persons who are eligible to be appointed as members of the Commission; selection of a person as an "eminent person" should be based on objective criteria, and was not to be a subjective decision; the minimum requirement of "ability, integrity and having outstanding record of selfless service to the cause of justice for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes" were applicable to the post of Chairman; the State Government was not entitled to fill up the posts of members and Chairman of the Commission without any norms, at its pleasure, wherein persons favoured by the party in power were chosen without any reference to qualities such as their ability, integrity, track record of providing services to members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, educational qualifications etc; the contention that appointment of the 4th respondent as Chairman of the Commission was not justiciable, since it was a part of the spoils system, was liable to be rejected; the term "eminent persons" in Section 5(1)(a) should be determined on the basis of objective criteria, and should atleast satisfy the minimum criteria mentioned in Section 5(1)(b) for appointing ordinary members of the Commission; it was possible to read into Section 5(1)(a) the said minimum criteria, and the requirement that the person must possess ability, very high integrity and a record of service to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes; and there ought to be a transparent process of selection of person to the post of the Chairman of the Commission.

  8. On point No. 4, the Learned Single Judge held that all the petitioners belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, and the 1st petitioner claimed to have credentials to be considered for appointment to the said post vis-à-vis. the credentials of the 4th respondent; along with the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, a copy of the application submitted by the 1st petitioner to the Chief Secretary on 14.07.2015, for consideration of his candidature for the said post had been filed; and the petitioners could, therefore, not be non-suited on the ground of locus.

  9. On point No. 5, the Learned Single Judge held that appointment of the 4th respondent could not have been made on the spoils system or the pleasure doctrine; interference is permissible if the appointment is not legally valid; appointment to the post of Chairman of the Commission could be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the Commission fell within the definition of "State" under Article 12; on application of the Wednesbury rule, the order of appointment of the 4th respondent was liable to be set aside on grounds of illegality, non-application of relevant principles, and procedural irregularities; the 1st respondent had committed an illegality in presuming that the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Chairman was an appointment under the 'spoils system'; it had erred in its belief that the word 'eminent' was subjective, it did not require any objective criteria, and even the relevant minimal qualifications prescribed for members need not be applied; there was no evidence that the 1st respondent had checked the antecedents of the 4th respondent through a process of police verification to check whether he was a person of integrity; this was because appointment of 4th respondent was made on the same day the Commission was constituted; no evidence was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT