Published On: Wed, Jul 29th, 2015

HC asks UP govt to explain appointment of UPPSC chief facing criminal charge

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has served a notice on the Uttar Pradesh government, seeking its reply on the appointment of Anil Yadav as the chairman of UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) even though there were 82 more candidates.

UP Public Service Commission Chairman Anil Yadav

UP Public Service Commission Chairman Anil Yadav

The HC has also issued a notice to Yadav and sought a reply within two weeks.

While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by advocate Satish Kumar Singh on the appointment of Yadav, the Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Yashwant Verma asked the state government why it had hurried to appoint Yadav.

The high court observed that no information has been provided to the petitioners with regard to information sought about the criminal cases against Yadav.

The petitioner had pointed out that there were several criminal cases against the UPPSC chairman, including at Agra’s Shahganj police station in crime case 98 of 1993, case 235 of 1983, case 413 of 1983 and case 553 of 1983.

At New Agra police station, case 553 of 1985 has been registered under section 3 of the Goonda Act against Yadav.
Moreover, at the same police station case 861 of 1991 has been registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
He was also booked in Agra’s Lohamandi and Hari Parvat stations in crime case 461-A of 1984 and case 31 of 1984, respectively.

“It appears that 83 bio data were received by the state government for consideration, for appointment to the post of chairperson of the UPPSC. The name of the first respondent appears at serial number 83.

“The file indicates that a note was put up by the Principal Secretary (Appointment and Karmik) on 29 March 2013, which was endorsed by the Chief Secretary, seeking a decision on the person to be appointed as Chairperson in view of the fact that the term of the then Chairperson was to come to an end on 31 March 2013.

“The Chief Secretary placed his signature on the file on 29 March 2013 and on the same day, the name of the first respondent was recommended by the chief minister for approval by the Governor,” the high court order stated.

“On 31 March 2013, a communication was addressed by the Special Officer in the Karmik Department to the Collector, Mainpuri, for a verification of the antecedents of the first respondent with a specific direction that this process should be completed on the same day.

“The Lekhpal submitted a report on 31 March 2013 (which is stated to have been a Sunday), stating that there was no adverse material against the first respondent and that the first respondent had also submitted an affidavit. The report of the Lekhpal was placed by the Tehsildar, Mainpuri, before the Collector, Mainpuri, who in turn, forwarded it to the Special Officer in the Karmik Department on 1 April 2013.

“The appointment of the first respon- SP general secretary Ram Gopal Yadav dent was notified on 1 April 2013,” the HC further observed.

Challenging the appointment of Yadav, the petitioner has cited a case of State of Punjab vs Salil Sabhlok, in which the Supreme Court had laid down the parameters for judicial review in regard to the appointment of a Chairperson of a Public Service Commission under Article 316 (1) of the Constitution.

In the judgment of Justice A K Patnaik, the importance of selecting a person with integrity and competence had been emphasised.

Upset over the favour done to a particular caste by UP Public Service Commission, the Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik had recently said that he would ask Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav to order a probe against the irregularity.

Read Also: 56 out of 86 SDM seats went to a particular caste in UP, claims PIL

Inputs with Mail Today

About the Author