E-Paper
No violation of statutory provisions in Kishor appointment by Punjab: HC
The bench, while dismissing the plea, said that it was of the firm opinion that the petitioners had no locus to challenge the appointment
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that there is no violation of constitutional and statutory provisions in the appointment of political strategist Prashant Kishor as principal adviser to Punjab chief minister Capt Amarinder Singh.
“The chief minister, being an elected representative, has manifold constitutional duties to discharge, including good governance towards the residents of the state. In fulfilment of the said obligation, the chief minister has complete authority to choose his advisers. Since an adviser to chief minister is not a post but an office which is not regulated by any statutory rules, the argument that an advertisement should be issued is completely misplaced,” said the division bench of justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash.
The high court was dealing with a plea from one Labh Singh and Satinder Singh who had demanded that the appointment be quashed. Labh Singh is a boxing coach based at Khanna and Satinder Singh, a lawyer and former councillor of the Chandigarh civic body. They had argued that without issuing any advertisement or conducting any interview after framing criteria, the post was filled up.
In the matters of appointment to any office under state, no post can be filled without following Article 16(1) of the Constitution that provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office. He has been appointed with a status of a cabinet minister and will be provided for all pay, perks and facilities from the state exchequer, therefore it was imperative for the state to issue an advertisement, they had argued.
State’s advocate general Atul Nanda had argued that the petition suffered from lack of locus and maintainability as in service matters, no PIL is maintainable.
The bench, while dismissing the plea, said that it was of the firm opinion that the petitioners had no locus to challenge the appointment. The appointment in question is not a civil appointment but for the purposes of perks and rank only, and thus, Article 16(1) of Constitution is not attracted, it said, adding that in case the appointment, as argued by petitioners, is only to accommodate some person which will put burden on ex-chequer, then it is for the public to take its call during the next elections.
The court further said that the petitioners have not been able to point out violation of any constitutional or statutory provision. They have filed a writ of certiorari (judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency) while seeking to espouse public interest.
In a number of judgments, the courts have held that in service matters no Public Interest Litigation is maintainable. Even if a challenge can be laid to any appointment, then only a writ of Quo Warranto (by what authority) can be maintained and that also if it is against statutory rules, the bench said, referring to various judgments in which it was held that a writ of Quo Warranto would be maintainable if challenge is laid to any appointment which is contrary to statutory rules. It is an admitted fact that no violation of any statutory provision has been pointed out in the appointment of Prashant Kishor, the bench stated.
