# STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 5 S.C.R. 18
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-02-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.7640 of 2011
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Madan B. Lokur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-v-saul-sabhlok-and-ors-29068
- **Pages:** 93

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.226, 316 and 320 -
State Public Service Commission -
Appointment of
C Chairman - Interference u/Art.226 of the Constitution- Scope
- Held: High Court should not normally, in exercise of its
power u!Art.226, interfere with the discretion of the State
Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the
State Public Service Commission - But in an exceptional
D case, if'it is shown- that relevan,.t factors implied from the very
nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions
u!Art.320 have not been considered by the State Governmen't
in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public
Service Commission, the High Court can invoke its wide and
E extra-ordinary powers u!Art.226 and quash the selection and
appointment to ensure that the discretion of the State
Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution
-On facts, where appointment of 'H' as Chairman of the
Punjab Public Service Commission was quashed by the High
F Court while exercising jurisdiction u!Art.226, the materials on
record do not indicate that 'H' had any knowledge or
experience whatsoever· either in administration or in
recruitment nor do the materials indicate that he had the
qualities to perform the duties as the Chairman of the State
G Public Service Commission u/Art.320 - Decision of the State
Government to appoint 'H' as the Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Commission was invalid for non-consideration
of relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties
entrusted to Public Service Commissions u!Art.320 -
H Impugned order of High Court accordingly not interfered with.
18
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
19
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 - Power under -
A
Exercise of- Scope - Held: Art.226 vests in the High Court
the power to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and B
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part Ill and for any other purpose.
Public Service Commisison -
State Public Service
Commission - Appointment of Chairman - Procedure -
Implied relevant factors - Held: It is for the Governor who is C
the appointing authority u/Art.316 to lay down the procedure
- But in absence of any pro9edure laid down by the Governor,
the State Government would not have absolute discretion -
The State Government has to select only persons with
integrity and competence for appointment, because the
D
discretion vested in the State Government u!Art.316 is
impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is
vested and the purposes are discernible from the functions
of the Public Service Commission enumerated in Art. 320 -
The State Public Service Commission is expected to act with
E
independence from the State Government and with fairness,
besides competence and maturity acquired through
knowledge and experience of public administration - Even
"'
though Art.316 does not specify the aforesaid qualities of the
Chairman of a Public Service Commission, these qualities
F
are amongst the. implied relevant factors which have to f?e
taken into consideration by the Government while determining
the competency of the person to be selected and appointed
as Chairman of the Public Service Commission u/Art.316 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 316 and 320.
G
Public Interest Litigation - Selection of 'H' for appointment.
as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission -Wljt
petition challenging such appointment - Maintainability:-
. Held: Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition for espousing the
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 5 S.C.R.
A cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a view
to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman of the
Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of ability and
integrity so that recruitment to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,769 of 180,915. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39769 for what follows._

A
B
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 18
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7640 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.226, 316 and 320 -
State Public Service Commission -
Appointment of
C Chairman - Interference u/Art.226 of the Constitution- Scope
- Held: High Court should not normally, in exercise of its
power u!Art.226, interfere with the discretion of the State
Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the
State Public Service Commission - But in an exceptional
D case, if'it is shown- that relevan,.t factors implied from the very
nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions
u!Art.320 have not been considered by the State Governmen't
in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public
Service Commission, the High Court can invoke its wide and
E extra-ordinary powers u!Art.226 and quash the selection and
appointment to ensure that the discretion of the State
Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution
-On facts, where appointment of 'H' as Chairman of the
Punjab Public Service Commission was quashed by the High
F Court while exercising jurisdiction u!Art.226, the materials on
record do not indicate that 'H' had any knowledge or
experience whatsoever· either in administration or in
recruitment nor do the materials indicate that he had the
qualities to perform the duties as the Chairman of the State
G Public Service Commission u/Art.320 - Decision of the State
Government to appoint 'H' as the Chairman of the Punjab
Public Service Commission was invalid for non-consideration
of relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties
entrusted to Public Service Commissions u!Art.320 -
H Impugned order of High Court accordingly not interfered with.
18
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
19
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 - Power under -
A
Exercise of- Scope - Held: Art.226 vests in the High Court
the power to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and B
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part Ill and for any other purpose.
Public Service Commisison -
State Public Service
Commission - Appointment of Chairman - Procedure -
Implied relevant factors - Held: It is for the Governor who is C
the appointing authority u/Art.316 to lay down the procedure
- But in absence of any pro9edure laid down by the Governor,
the State Government would not have absolute discretion -
The State Government has to select only persons with
integrity and competence for appointment, because the
D
discretion vested in the State Government u!Art.316 is
impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is
vested and the purposes are discernible from the functions
of the Public Service Commission enumerated in Art. 320 -
The State Public Service Commission is expected to act with
E
independence from the State Government and with fairness,
besides competence and maturity acquired through
knowledge and experience of public administration - Even
"'
though Art.316 does not specify the aforesaid qualities of the
Chairman of a Public Service Commission, these qualities
F
are amongst the. implied relevant factors which have to f?e
taken into consideration by the Government while determining
the competency of the person to be selected and appointed
as Chairman of the Public Service Commission u/Art.316 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 316 and 320.
G
Public Interest Litigation - Selection of 'H' for appointment.
as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission -Wljt
petition challenging such appointment - Maintainability:-
. Held: Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition for espousing the
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 5 S.C.R.
A cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a view
to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman of the
Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of ability and
integrity so that recruitment to public services in the State of
Punjab are from the best available talents and are fair and is
B not influenced by politics and extraneous considerations -
Considering the averments in the writ petition, it cannot be ·
held that the writ petition was just a service matter in which
only the aggrieved party had the locus to initiate a legal action
in the court of law - The writ petition was a matter affecting
c interest of the general public in the State of Punjab and any
member of the public could espouse the cause of the general
public so long as his bonafides were not in doubt - When
respondent No. 1 brought to the notice of the High Court
through the writ petition that the State Government of Punjab
0 proposed to appoint 'H' as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission, only because of his political affiliation, the High
Court rightly entertained the writ petition as a public interest
litigation.
Pr.aetice & Procedure - Reference to larger Bench - Writ
E petition challenging appointment of 'H' ·as Chairman of the
Punjab Public Service Commission - Division Bench of the
High Court made academic reference· to Full Bench of three
Judges of the High Court on specific questions of law -
Justification - Held: On facts, justified - No merit in the
F submission that the Division Bench of the High Court having
found in its order that the irregularities and illegalities pointed
out in the writ petition against 'H' were unsubstantiated, should
not have made an academic reference to the larger Bench
of the High Court - The Division Bench of the High Court was
G of the view that the persons to be appointed must have
competence· and integrity, but how such persons are to be
identified and selected must be considered by a Bench of
three Judges and accordingly made the reference - Punjab
High Court Rules - rr. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
21
Practice & Procedure - Reference to larger Bench -
A
Scope of reference - Writ petition challenging appointment
of Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission -
Division Bench of the High Court made reference to Full
Bench of three Judges of the High Court on specific questions
of law relating to procedure for identifying persons of B
competence and integrity for such appointment - Full Bench,
instead of deciding the specific questions, gave directions to
the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana to follow a
particular procedure for appointment of Members and
Chairman of the Public Service Commission till such time a
C
fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the
mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution was made- Justification
- Held: Not justified - The Full Bench of the High Court
decided issues which were not referred to it by the Division
Bench of the High Court - It acted beyond its jurisdiction and 0
usurped the-constitutional power of the Governor in laying
down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Art.316.
The State Government of Punjab appointed Shri
Harish Chanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public
Service Commission. Respondent No.1, an Advocate
practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh, filed a public interest litigation under Article
226 of the Constitution praying for a mandamus directing
E
F
the State Government to frame regulations g~verning the
conditions of service and appointment of the Chairman
and/or the Members of the Public Service Commission as
envisaged in Article 318 of the Constitution. Respondent
no.1 also prayed. for a direction restraining the State G
Government from appointing Shri Harish Chanda as the
Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in
view of the fact that his appointment does not fall within
the parameters of integrity, impartiality and independence
as reiterated time and again by this Court:
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
The Division Bench of the High Court referred the
matter to the Bench of three Judges of the High Court.
Thereafter, the Chief Justice of the High Court
constituted a Full Bench. The Full Bench of the High
Court delivered a judgment and passed an order on
B 17 .08.2011 directing both the State of Haryana and the
State of Punjab to follow a particular procedure as part
of the decision-making process for appointment as
Members and Chairman of the Public Service
Commission, till such time a fair, rational, objective and
c transparent policy to meet the mandate of Article 14 was
made. By the order dated 17.08.2011, the Full Bench of
the High Court also ordered that the writ petition be listed
before the Division Bench to be constituted by the Chief
Justice of the High Court. Pursuant to the order dated
0 17 .08.2011, the Division Bench constituted by the Chief
Justice of the High Court quashed the appointment of
Shri Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public
Service Commission and disposed of the writ petition of
respondent No.1 in terms of the judgment of the Full
Bench. Aggrieved, the State of Punjab, State of Haryana
E and Shri H.R. Dhanda filed the instant appeals against the
judgment and orders dated 17.08.2011 of the Full Bench
and the Division Bench of the High Court.
The question which arose for decision of this Court
F was whether the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can lay
down the procedure for the selection and appointment
of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission
and quash his appointment in appropriate cases.
G
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Per Patnaik, J.
1. On a reading of the entire writ petition filed by
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
23
respondent No.1 before the High Court, it is clear that A
respondent no.1 filed this writ petition for espousing the
cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a
view to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman
of the Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of
ability and integrity so that recruitment to public services
B
in the State of Punjab are from the best available talents
and are fair and is not influenced by politics and
extraneous considerations. Considering the averments in
the writ petition, it cannot be held that the writ petition is
Just a service matter in which only the aggrieved party c
has the locus to initiate a legal action in the court of law.
The writ petition is a matter affecting interest of the
general public in the State of Punjab and any member of
the public could espouse the. cause of the general public
so long as his bonafides are not in doubt. Considering
D
the past experience of the damage to recruitment to
public services caused by appointing a person lacking
in character as the Chairman of the Public Service
Commission in the State of Punjab during the period 1996
to 2002 [as noted in the judgment of this Court in
lnderpreet Singh Kah/on case] when respondent No.1 · E
brought to the notice of the High Court through the writ
petition that the State Government of Punjab proposed
to appoint Shri Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, only because of his political
affiliation, the High Court rightly entertained the writ
F
petition as a public interest litigation. [Paras 23, 31) [51E-H; 62-A-C]
2.1. Though respondent No.1 had alleged in the writ
petition some irregularities and illegalities on the part of G
Shri Harish Dhanda, who was proposed to be appointed
· as Chairman of the Public Service Commission by the
State Government, the writ petition was not founded only
on such irregularities and illegalities alleged against Shri
Harish Chanda. In addition, the respondent No.1 had
also alleged in the writ petition that Shri Harish Dhanda
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 5 S.C.R.
A was politically affiliated to the ruling party and was not
selected for appointment as Chairman of the Public
Service Commission on the basis of his qualifications,
experience or ability which are necessary for the post of
the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Thus,
B even if the Division Bench had recorded a finding in the
order dated 13.07 .2011 that the irregularities and
illegalities pointed. out in the writ petition against Shri
Harish Dhanda do not stand substantiated, the writ
petition could not be disposed of with the said finding
c only. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore,
thought it necessary to make a reference to the Full
Bench and has given its reasons for the reference to the
Full Bench in its order dated 13.07 .2011. [Para 24] [52-H;
53-A-C]
D
2.2. It is clear from the order dated 13.07 .2011 that the
Division Bench of the High Court found that Article 316
of the Constitution, which provides for appointment of
the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service
Commission by the Governor, does not prescribe any
E particular procedure and took the view that, having.
regard to the purpose and nature of appointment, it
cannot be assumed that power of appointment need not
be regulated by any procedure. The Division Bench of
the High Court was of the further view that the persons
F to be appointed must have competence and integrity, but
how such persons are to be identified and selected must
be considered by a Bench of three Judges and
accordingly referred the matter to the three Judges. The
Division Bench also referred the question to the larger
G Bench of three Judges as to whether the procedure
adopted in the present case for appointing Shri Harish
Chanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service
Commission was valid and if not, what is the effect of not
following the procedure. There is, therefore, no rrlerit in
H the submission that the Division Bench of the High Court
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
25
having found in its order dated 13.07 .2011 that the A
irregularities and illegalities pointed out in the writ petition
against Shri · Harish Dhanda are unsubstantiated, should
not have made an academic reference to the larger Bench
of the High Court. [Para 25] [53-H; 54-A-E]
B
3.1. However, it cannot be said that the Division
Bench referred the entire case to the Full Bench by the
order dated 13.07 .2011. It is further found that although
specific questions relating to the procedure for identifying •
persons of competence and integrity for appointment as· C
the. Chairman of the Public Service Commission only
were referred by the Division Bench of the High Court,
the Full Bench, instead of deciding these specific
questions referred to it, has given directions to the State
of Punjab and the State of Haryana to follow a particular
procedure for. appointment of Members and Chairman of D
the Public Service Commission till such time a fair,
rational, objective and transparent. policy to meet the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution is made. The Full
Bench of the High Court has decided issues which
were not referred to it by the Division Bench of the High
E
Court and the judgment dated 17 ~08.2011 of the Full
Bench of the High Court was without jurisdiction. [Para
28) [57 -8-E]
3.2. Under Article 316 of the Constitution, the
F
Governor of a State has not only the· express power of
appointing the Chairman and other Members of Public
Service Commission but also the implied powers to lay
down the procedure for appointment of Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission and the High
G
Court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution usurp
this constitutional power of the Government and lay
down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman
and. other Members of the Public Service Commission.
The Full Bench of the High Court, therefore, could not H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
have laid down the procedure for appointment of the
Chairman and Members of the Punjab Public Service
Commission and the Haryana public Service Commission
by the impugned judgment dated 17 .08.2011. Inasmuch
as the Full Bench of the High Court has in its judgment
B dated 17.08.2011 acted beyond its jurisdiction and has
usurped the constitutional power of the Governor in
laying down the procedure for appointment of the
Chairman and Members of the Public Service
Commission, the said judgment dated 17.08.2011 of the
c Full Bench of the High Court is being set aside. [Paras
29, 30) (59-E-H; 60-A-B]
D
4.1. Nevertheless to cut short the litigation, the writ
petition is now being decided on merits instead of
remanding the matter to the High Court. (Para 30) (60-8]
4.2. It is for the Governor who is the appointing
authority under Article 316 of the Constitution to lay down
the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission, but this is
not to say that in the absence of any procedure laid down
E by the Governor for appointment of Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission under Article
316 of the Constitution, the State Government would have
absolute discretion in selecting and appointing any
person as the Chairman of the State Public Service
F
Commission. Even where a procedure has not been laid
down by the Govern.or for appointment of Chairman and
Members of the Public Service Commission, the State
Government has to select only persons with integrity and
competence for appointment as Chairman of the Public
G Service Commission, because the discretion vested in
the State Government under Article 316 of the
Constitution is impliedly limited by the purposes for
which the discretion is vested and the purposes are
discernible from the functions of the Public Service
H Commissions enumerated in Article 320 of the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
27
Constitution. Under clause (1) of Article 320 of the A
Constitution, the State Public Service Commission has
the duty to conduct examinations for appointments to the
services of the State. Under clause (3) of Article 320, the
State Public Service Commission has to be consulted by
the State Government on matters relating to recruitment B
and appointment to the civil services and civil posts in
the State, on disciplinary matters affecting a person
serving under the Government of a State in a civil
capacity, on claims by and in respect of a person who is
serving under the State Government towards costs of c
defending a legal proceeding, on claims for award of
pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while
serving under the State Government and other matters.
In such matters, the State Public Service Commission is
expected to act with independence from the State 0
Government and with fairness, besides competence and
maturity acquired through knowledge and experience of
public administration. [Para 31] [62-E-H; 63-A-D]
4.3. Even though Article 316 does not specify the
aforesaid qualities of the Chairman of a Public Service E
Commission, these qualities are amongst the implied
relevant factors which have to be taken into
consideration by the Government while determining the
competency of the person to be selected and appointed
as Chairman of the Public Service Commission under
Article 316 of the Constitution. Accordingly, if these
F
relevant factors are not taken into consideration by the
State Government while selecting and appointing the
Chairman of the Public. Service Commission, the Court
can hold the selection and appointment as not in
accordance with the Constitution. To ensure this G
independence of the Chairman and Members of the
Public Service Commission, clause (3) of Article 316 of
the Constitution provides that a person shall, on
expiration of his term of office be ineligible for
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
reappointment to that office. [Paras 32, 33] [63-E-G; 65C-D]
4.4. Besides express restrictions in a statute or the
Constitution, there can be implied restrictions in a statute
8
and the Constitution and the statutory or the
constitutional authority cannot in breach of such implied
restrictions exercise its discretionary power. Moreover,
Article 226 of the Constitution vests in the High Court the
power to issue to any person or authority, including in
C appropriate cases; any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part Ill and
for any other purpose. The power of the High Court
D under Article 226 of the Constitution is, thus, not confined
to only writ of quo warranto but to other directions,
orders or writs. [Para 34] [65-G-H; 66-A-C]
4.5. The High Court should not normally, in exercise
E of its power under Article 226 of ttie Constitution, interfere
with the discretion of the State Government in selecting
and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service
Commission, but in an exceptional case if it is shown that
relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties ·
F
entrusted to Public Service Commissions under Article
320 of the Constitution have not been considered by the
State Government in selecting and appointing the
Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, the
High Court can invoke its wide and extra-ordinary powers
G under Article 226 of the Constitution and quash the
selection and appointment to ensure that the discretion
of the State Government is exercised within the bounds
of the Constitution. [Para 34] [67-C-E]
5. In the present case, the High Court in its order
H dated 13.07 .2011 had held that the irregularities and
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
29
illegalities alleged against Shri Harish Dhanda have not A
been substantiated. This Court had passed orders on
01.08.2012 calling upon the State of Punjab to produce
the material referred to in para 69 of the judgment of the
Full Bench of the High Court on the basis of which Shri
"Harish Dhanda was selected for appointment as B
·chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission.
Pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2012, the State
Government produced the files in which the selection and
appointment of Shri Harish Dhanda was processed by
the State Government. The materials indicate that Shri c
Harish Dhanda had B.A. and LLB Degrees and was
practicing as an Advocate at the District Courts in
. Ludhiana and had been elected as the President of the
District Bar Association, Ludhiana for seven terms and
has been member of the Legislative Assembly. These D
materials do not indicate that Shri Harish Dhanda had any
knowledge or experience whatsoever either in
administration or in recruitment nor do these materials
indicate that Shri Harish Dhanda had the qualities to
perform the.duties as the Chairman of the State Public
·Service Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution. E
No other information through affidavit has also been
placed on record to show that Shri Harish Dhanda has
the positive qualities to perform the duties of the office
of the Chairman of the State Pubic Service Commission
under Article 320 of the.Constitution. The decision of the F
State Government to appoint Shri Harish Dhanda as the
Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission was
thus invalid for non-consideration of relevant factors
implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to the
Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the G
Constitution. [Para 35] [67-F-H; 68"G-H; 69-A-D]
6. In the result, the impugned order of the Division
Bench of the High Court dated 17.08.2011 quashing the
selection and appointment of Shri Harish Dhanda as H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 5 S.C.R.
A
Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission, is
not interfered with, but the judgment dated 17 .08.2011 of
the Full Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 36]
(69-E]
8
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (1974) 4
SCC 3: 1974 (2) SCR 348; State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
Manas Kumar Chakraborly & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 604: 2002
(5) Suppl. SCR 72 - distinguished.
In re Mehar Singh Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC and
c others (2010) 13 sec 586 - explained.
In Rio Or. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission (2000) 4 SCC 309: 2000 (2) SCR 688;
Ram Kumar Kashyap and another vs. Union of India and
D another AIR 2010 SC 1151: 2009 (12) SCR 601; R.K. Jain
v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 119: 1993 (3) SCR
802; Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
& Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 273: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 77; Oattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC
E
590: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 900; Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349: 2003 (5) Suppl.
SCR 716; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.
(2010) 9 SCC 655: 2010 (10) SCR 561; Girjesh Shrivastava
& Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 707: 2010 (12)
F
SCR 839; Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India & Ors. (1981)
Supp.1 SCC 38; The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev
Singh (1961) 2 SCR 371; Supreme Court Employees
Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 4 SCC
187: 1989 (3) SCR 488; Suresh Seth v. Commissioner of
Indore Municipal Corporation (2005) 13 SCC 287; Divisional
G Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr.
(2008) 1 SCC 683: 2007 (12) SCR 1084; Asif Hameed &
Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (1989) 2 Supp. SCC 364: 1989
(3) SCR 19; B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water
Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association & Ors.
H (2006) 11 SCC 731: 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 462; Ashok Kumar
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
31
Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 417: A
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657; lnderpreet Singh Kah/on and
Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2006) 11 SCC 356:
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772; Centre for PIL and Another v.
Union of India and Another (2011) 4 SCC 1; Kera/a State
Science & , Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. & Ors. (2006)
B
6 SCC 258: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 243; Dwarka Nath v.
Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur & Anr.
AIR 1966 SC 81: 1965 SCR 536; Mohinder Singh Gill &. Anr.
v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
(1978) 1 SCC 405: 1978 (2) SCR 272; Mis Hochtief c
Gammon v. State of Orissa and Others AIR 1975 SC 2226:
1976 (1) SCR 667 - referred to.
De Smith's Judicial Review, Sixth Edition - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
D
2000 (2) SCR 688
referred to
Para 4, 31
2009 (12) SCR 601
referred to
Para 4
(201 O) 13 sec 586
explained
Para 4, 26
E
1993 (3) SCR 802
referred to
Para 9
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 77
referred to
Para 9
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 900 referred to
Para 9.
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 716 referred to
Para 9, 31
F
2010 (10) SCR 561
referred to
Para 9
2010 (12) SCR 839
referred to . Para 9
(1981) Supp.1 sec 38
referred to
Para 11
G
(1961) 2 SCR 371
referred to
Para 11
1989 (3) SCR 488
referred to
Para 12
(2005) 13 sec 201
referred to
Para 12
H
A
B
c
D
E
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
2007 (12) SCR 1084
referred to
Para 12
1989 (3) SCR 19
referred to
Para 12
1974 (2) SCR 348
distinguished Para 12
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 72
distinguished Para 12
2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 462 referred to
Para 13
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657 referred to
Para 15
2000 (2) SCR 688
referred to
Para 15
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772 referred to
Para 15, 32
(2011) 4 sec 1
. referred to
Para 16
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 243 referred to
Para 18
1965 SCR 536
referred to
Para 19
1978 (2) SCR 272
referred to
Para 29,
1976 SCR 667
referred to
Para 32
Per Lokur, J. [Concurring]
1.1. The appointment of the Chairpetson of the
Punjab Public Service Commission is an appointment to
a constitutional position and is not a "service matter". A
F
PIL challenging such an appointment is, therefore,
maintainable both for the issuance of a writ of quo
warranto and for a writ of' declaration, as the case may
be. [Para 107] [109-F-G]
1.2. In a case for the issuance of a writ of declaration,
G exercise of the power of judicial review is presently limited
to examining the deliberative process for the
appointment not meeting the constitutional, functional
and institutional requirements of the institution whose
integrity and commitment needs to be maintained or the
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
33
appointment for these reasons not being in public A
interest. [Para 109-H; 110-A]
1.3. The circumstances of this case leave no room for
doubt that the notification dated 7th July 2011 appointing
Mr. Harish Rai Dhanda was deservedly quashed by the
High Court since there was no deliberative process
worth the name in making the appointment and also
since the constitutional, functional and institutional
requirements of the Punjab Public Service Commission
were not met. [Para 109] [110-8-C]
B
c
1.4. There is a need for a word of caution to the High
Courts. There is a likelihood of comparable challenges
being made by trigger-happy litigants to appointments
made to constitutional positions where no eligibility
criterion or procedure has been laid down. The High
D
Courts will do well to be extremely circl!mspect in even
entertaining such petitions. It is necessary to keep in
mind that sufficient elbow room must be given to the
Executive to make constitutional appointments as long
as the constitutional, functional and institutional
E
requirements are met and the appointments are in
conformity with the indicators given by this Court from
time to time. [Para 11 O] [110-C-E]
1.5. Given _the experience in the making of such
appointments, there is no doubt that until the State
Legislature enacts an appropriate law, the State of Punjab
must step in and take urgent steps to frame a
memorandum of procedure and administrative guidelines
F
for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and
members of the Punjab Public Service Commission, so G
that the possibility of arbitrary appointments is eliminated.
[Para 111] [110-F-G]
Hari Bansh Lalv. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC
655; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; · H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
State of W.B. v. Manas Kumar Chakraborty, (2003) 2 SCC
604; State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood, AIR 1968 SC 1113,
Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb, AIR 1968 SC 1495 and State
Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486 -
distinguished. ·
B
R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119, Mor
Modern Coop. Transport Society v. Govt. of Haryana, (2002)
6 SCC 269, High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat, (2003) 4 SCC 712 and B. Srinivasa Reddy v.
Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board
C
Employees' Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2); Mahesh
Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Others, (2009) 8 SCC
273; Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of
India, In re, (1990) 4 SCC 262; Bihar Public Service
Commission v. Shiv Jatan Thakur, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 220;
D Ram Ashray Yadav (Dr.), Chairrn.an, Bihar Public Service
Commission, In Re, (2000) 4 SCC 309; Ram Kumar
Kashyap v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 278; Mehar Singh
Saini, Chairman, Haryana Public Service Commission, In re,
(2010) 13 SCC 586; R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC
E
119; Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)
10 SCC 707; Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, B. Srinivasa Reddy, Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590,
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB (2004) 3 SCC 349; T.
F
C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [1955) 1 SCR 250; Kumar
Padma Prasad v, Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428; N.
Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, (2009) 7 SCC 1; Centre for PIL
v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 1; Ashok Kumar Yadav v.
State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417; In RIO Dr Ram Ashray
G Yadav, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,
(2000) 4 SCC 309; lnderpreet Singh Kah/on v. State of
Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356; State of Bihar v. Upendra
Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65; ·Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commissione1~ (1978) 1 SCC 405; Supreme
H
Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1989) 4
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
35
SCC 187; Asif Hameed v. State of J & K, 1989 Supp (2) SCC
A
364; Suresh Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corpn.,
(2005) 13 SCC 287; Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Assn. and State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
548; Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC
38; Kera/a State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal
B
Co., (2006) 6 SCC 258; T.A. Hameed v. M. Viswanathan,
(2008) 3 SCC 243; Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State
of Maharashtra, (2010) 9 SCC 93; State of Punjab v. Sodhi
Sukhdev Singh, (1961) 2 SCR 371 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
c
(201 O) 9 sec 655
distinguished
Para 16
(1993) 4 sec 119
referred to
Para 16
(2002) 6 sec 269
referred to
Para 16
D
(2003) 4 sec 112
referred to
Para 16
(2006) 11 sec 731 (2)
referred to
Para 16
(2009) 8 sec 273
referred to
Para 17
E
In re, (1990) 4 sec 262 referred to
Para 19
1994 Supp. (3) SCC 220 referred to
Para 20
In Re, (2000) 4 SCC 309 referred to
Para 21
(2009) 9 sec 278
referred to
Para 22
F
In re, (2010) 13 SCC 586 referred to
Para 23
(1993) 4 sec 119
referred to
Para 32
(2010) 10 sec 101
referred to
Para 34
G
(1998) 1 sec 213
referred to
Para 34
(2005) 1 sec 590
referred to
Para 34
(2004) 3 sec 349
referred to
Para 34
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A
[1955] 1 SCR 250
referred to
Para 36
(1992) 2 sec 428
referred to
Para 37
(2009) 7 sec 1
referred to
Para 38
B
(2011) 4 sec 1
referred to
Para 39
(1985) 4 sec 417
referred to
Para 41
(2000) 4 sec 309
referred to
Para 42
(2006) 11 sec 356
referred to
Para 44
c
(2009) 5 sec 65
referred to
Para 46
(1978) 1 sec 405
referred to
Para 60
(1974) 4 sec 3
distinguished
Para 69
D
(2003) 2 sec 604
distinguished
Para 70
AIR 1968 SC 1113
distinguished
Para 71
AIR 1968 SC 1495
distinguished
Para 71
E
(1987) 4 sec 486
distinguished
Para 71
(1989) 4 sec 187
referred to
Para 84
1989 Supp (2) sec 364 referred to
Para 84
F
(2005) 13 sec 287
referred to
Para 85
1992 Supp (1) sec 548 referred to
Para 85
1981 Supp sec 38
referred to
Para 95
(2006) 6 sec 258
referred to
Para 95
G
(2008) 3 sec 243
referred to
Para 95
(2010) 9 sec 93
referred to
Para 95
(1961) 2 SCR 371
referred to
Para 106
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
37
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
A
7640 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.08.2011 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No, 11846
of 2011 (0 & M).
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2685, 3687 of 2012 & 1365-1367 of 2013.
B
P.P. Rao, P.N. Misra, Sarvesh Bisaria, P.C. Sharma, C
Abhimanyu Tiwari, Apeksha Sharan, S. Usha Reddy, Manjit
Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, R.S. Hegde, Rajeev Singh for the
Appellant.
U.U. Lalit, Law Associates & Co., Kiran Bhardwaj, J.
Wasim A. Quadri, B.V. Balramdass, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Chauhan D
Rajan Bharti, P.P. Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos.
22010-22012. of 2011.·
E
2. In these appeals against the judgment and orders of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, a very important question of
law arises for our decision: whether the High Court in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can
F
lay down the procedure for the selectiqn and appointment of
the Chairman of the State Public SeNice Commission and
quash his appointment in appropriate cases.
Facts:
G
3. The relevant facts very briefly are that by notification
dated 07.07.2011, the State Government of Punjab appointed'
Shri Harish · Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Pubfic
Service Commission. On 10.07.2011, the respondent No.1 who
was an Advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
Court, Chandigarh, filed a public interest litigation under Article
226 of the Constitution (Writ Petition No.11846 of 2011) praying
for a mandamus directing the State Government to frame
regulations governing the conditions of service and
appointment of the Chairman and/or the Members of the Public
Service Commission as envisaged in Article 318 of the
Constitution of India. The respondent No.1 also prayed for a
direction restraining the State Government from appointing Shri
Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service
Commission in view of the fact that his appointment does not
fall within the parameters of integrity, impartiality and
independence as reiterated time and again by this Court.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional
Advocate General for the State of Punjab, passed an order on
13.07.2011 holding that even though Article 316 of the
Constitution does not prescribe any particular procedure for
appointment of Chairman of the Public Service Commission,
having regard to the purpose and nature of the appointment, it
cannot be assumed that the power of appointment need not
be regulated by any procedure. Relying on the judgments of this.
Court iri the case of In RIO Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, Chairman, ·
Bihar Public Service Commission [(2000) 4 SCC 309], Ram
Kumar Kashyap and another vs. Union of India and another
(AIR 201 O SC 1151) and In re Mehar Singh Singh Saini,
Chairman, HPSC and others [(2010) 13 SCC 586], the
Division Bench held that it is not disputed that the persons to
be appointed as Chairman and Members of the Public Service
Commission must have competence and integrity. The Division
Bench of the High Court further held that a question, therefore,
arises as to how such persons are to be identified and selected
for appointment as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission and whether, in the present case, the procedure
adopted was valid and if not, the effect thereof. The Division
Bench further observed that these questions need to be
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.
39
[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
considered by a Bench of three Judges and referred the matter
A
to the Bench of three Judges of the High Court.
B
5. Pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Division
Bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted a Full
Bench. On 19.07.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court passed
an order calling for certain information from the State
Government of Punjab and the Punjab Public Service
Commission on the number of posts filled up by the Public
Service Commission in the last five years, the number of posts
taken out from the purview of the Public Service Commission
in the last five years and regulations, if any, framed by the State
C
Government. On 01.08.2011, the Full Bench of the High Court
also passed orders requiring the Union of India to furnish
information on three questions: (1) Whether there were any
criteria or guidelines to empanel a candidate for consideration
for appointment as a Member of the Union India Public Service
D
Commission; (2) Which authority or officer prepares such panel;
and (3) What methodology is kept in view by the authority while
preparing the panel.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2011 of the
E
Division Bench of the High Court and the orders dated
19.07.2011 and 01.08.2011 of the Full Bench of the High Court,
the State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petitions (C)
Nos.22010-22012 of 2011 before this Court. On 05.08.2011,
this Court, while issuing a notice in the Special Leave Petitions,
F
made it clear that issuance of notice in the Special Leave
Petitions will not come in the way of the High Court deciding
the matter and the State of Punjab is at liberty to urge all
contentions before the High Court. Accordingly, the Full Bench
of the High Court heard the matters on 08.08.2011 and directed
G
the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab to remain present
at 2.00 P.M. along with the relevant files which contain the
advice of the Chief Minister to the Government.