The Patna High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed challenging the appointment of the Private Respondent as the Chairman of the Bihar State Food Commission.
The PIL is filed by the Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life through its General Secretary.
Dinu Kumar , counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appointment of the Private Respondent is in conflict with Section 16(3) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and Rule 5 of the Bihar State Food Commission Rules, 2014. The appointment has been made without any public advertisement and there is absolutely no transparency in the selection conducted. It is argued that the Private Respondent is a politician and is not qualified to be appointed to the post which requires some expertise and experience in the matter of providing food and nutrition to the downtrodden. It is pointed out that the bio-data of the 8th Respondent was received even before the selection commenced. There was no person in consideration other than the Private Respondent. The counsel would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Namita Sharma vs. Union of India; (2013) 1 SCC 745 and Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.; (2018) 11 SCC 734, to contend that the appointment made is quite in contravention of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions.
S.Raja Ahmad, Government Advocate for the respondents-State on the other hand, takes serious umbrage at the submissions that the Private Respondent is a politician and hence, disentitled to be appointed to the post. The Private Respondent has wide experience in public affairs and was also the Chairman of the Scheduled Caste Commission of Bihar and has a long history of public service, which makes him imminently suitable for the post. The appointment to the post of the Commission statutorily created does not go by public advertisement and hence, a Selection Committee was appointed for proper recommendation. The Selection Committee had called for recommendations from various Departments, which was not fruitful. It was in the above circumstance that the Private Respondent was appointed which cannot be faulted and he has the necessary experience and expertise to handle the post of Chairman of the Commission.
On 06.04.2017, a Selection Committee was constituted whose Chairman was the Minister of the Food & Consumer Protection Department, with the Principal Secretaries of the Food & Consumer Protection Department and of the Co-operative Department as its Members. The post of Chairman fell vacant on the death of the earlier Chairman on 19.06.2019. On 03.12.2019, a letter was issued to the Secretary of the General Administration Department; Home (Special) Department; Social Welfare Department, Co-operative Department, Health Department, Agriculture Department and Human Rights Commission to make recommendations for the post. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, notification was issued by which the Private Respondent was appointed, under Section 7 of the Bihar State Food Commission Rule, 2014, as the Chairman of the Commission. It is very evident that there were no recommendations made from the various Departments and in that circumstance, the 8th Respondent was appointed.
The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State specifically refers to the experience of the Private Respondent in social work, human rights etc and the 8th Respondent having occupied the post of Chairman of the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Commission. The bio-data of the Private Respondent, also speaks of the vast experience in social work and public affairs.
The petitioner has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court to challenge the selection. Namita Sharma (supra) was concerned with the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner under Section 12(5) and the State Commissioners under Section 15(5), were to be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. It was also stipulated that they shall not be Members of the Parliament or Members of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory.
The Supreme Court having considered the issue raised, held that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are constitutionally valid, but, however, only by reading into the expression ‘knowledge and experience’, to mean and include a basic degree in the respective field and the experience gained thereafter. The said decision, however, was reviewed in Union of India v. Namita Sharma; (2013) 10 SCC 359 and the provisions were held to be constitutionally valid without the rider.
Though MP’s and MLA’s were not to be Chairpersons it was declared that the prohibition is only in so far as such persons, if appointed, continuing in the houses of the peoples’ representatives. This imminently shuts out the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners against the 8th Respondent; that he is a politician.
Techi Tagi Tara (supra) was again a case in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the appointment of persons to the State Pollution Control Board, which was with the avowed object of protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forest and wildlife. The Chairman of the State Board, under Section 4(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 5(2) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, was to be a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions, dealing with the matters aforesaid. The learned Judges noticed many decisions of the Supreme Court and specifically the Menon Committee and held that expert and professional appointment to the State Pollution Control Boards should be geared towards establishing a professional body with multifarious tasks intended to preserve and protect the environment; consisting of experts. The Judges directed the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months considering the institutional requirements of the SPCBs and the law laid down by the statute.
The decisions cited at the Bar, according to the Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy , do not vitiate the appointment of the Private Respondent, who has wide experience in public affairs and dealing with the downtrodden and the marginalised people among the citizenry. We also have to notice that it is the politicians who work among the masses and are often chosen by the citizenry to be their representatives in the Legislature and the Parliament; giving them the authority to govern this land. There can be no disability found in a politician, especially going by the qualifications required for the appointment of the Chairperson of the instant Commission.
As far as the selection process is concerned, the counter affidavit of the State has specifically referred to the recommendations called for, from the various Departments. Only in the context of there being no recommendation from any of the Departments that the Private Respondent was appointed. The mere fact that the Private Respondent’s bio-data was available with the Department even prior to calling for recommendations, does not disqualify him.
The Selection Committee itself was constituted in 2017 and it has ex officio members. The existing Chairperson expired and there was a vacancy in the Commission. The fact that a bio-data was forwarded by the Private Respondent to the concerned Department, does not necessarily bring forth any illegality. The fact that the only person in the selection was the Private Respondent was merely fortuitous and there is no mandate on the State to carry out public advertisement, especially when a Selection Committee was appointed which could device the method by which the search of suitable hands could be made and recommendations given to the Government , the Bench observed.