KPSC appointments will have to be made in a transparent manner: HC

The High Court of Karnataka has said the State government has to make the appointment of members of Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) in an absolutely transparent manner without giving rise to any such aspersion or allegations of arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.

The High Court of Karnataka has said the State government has to make the appointment of members of Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) in an absolutely transparent manner without giving rise to any such aspersion or allegations of arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.

The government should also keep in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court with regard to the caution and procedure to be adopted by the State government while making appointment to these high and sensitive constitutional posts and also the post of chairman of KPSC, the court said.

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice M.G.S. Kamal, made these observations while disposing of two PIL petitions in which the legality of appointments made to the posts of member and KPSC chairman was questioned. 

The petitioner Shahi Prasad Gandhi, an advocate, had questioned the legality of appointing Shivashankarappa S. Sahukar as chairman of KPSC in 2021, and petitioner T. Narasimhamurthy, a social activist, had  challenged the appointment of 11 other persons to the posts of member during 2017-19.

On the main allegations of the petitioners that appointments were made in violation of the recommendations of the P.C. Hota committee on selection criteria for these posts, the Bench said that there was no need for the government to follow the committee’s recommendations as the State Cabinet, at its meeting on August 24, 2013, had not accepted the committee’s recommendations and a government order was also issued based on the decision of the Cabinet.

With regard to the petitioners’ plea for a direction to the government for framing rules and regulations for appointment of members/chairman of the commission, the Bench said there was no need for it as the apex court itself had left it to the wisdom of the legislature to deal with the exigency. 

Also, the Bench said that the petitioners had not disputed the qualification possessed by the respondent members and the chairman, except unsuccessfully questioning the correctness of one of the past work experience of the chairman.