In the case of Hem Raj vs. State of Himachal and others the bench of Himachal Pradesh high court which comprised of Chief Justice L.Narayana Swamy and Justice Jyotsana Rewal Dua asked the State Government to to take important steps to frame guidelines for appointment of PSC.

It is stated that the petitioner is a law student and after going through the constitutional provisions he applied for information under Right to information act and was shocked to see that the constitutional provisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been violated while making the selection of respondent no.3 as a member of commission. It was stated in the petition that the matter of selection of member of commission was placed before the chief minister and then in front the governor. It was averred that no other was selected other that respondent no.3 due to her honesty, credibility and integrity and the governor has nothing to do with it. An FIR was registered against respondent no.3 and her husband who private secretary of the chief minister. The respondents said that the Petitioner according to Article 316 & 317 of the Constitution of India was aware about the procedure to be adopted by constitutional machinery and also aware of judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court still he challenged the appointment of respondent no.3 which shows that he has bad intention towards respondent no.3.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court  in B. Krishna Bhat  vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 65  in Para 5 held that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is not the nest for all the bees in the bonnet of ‘public spirited persons’.

The Hon’ble Supreme court in State of Punjab vs. Sahil Sablok and others in para 88 stated that “The significance of these decisions is that they prohibit a PIL in a service matter, except for the purposes of a writ of quo   warranto.   However,   as   I   have   concluded,   the appointment   of   the   Chairperson   in   a   Public   Service Commission does not fall in the category of a service matter. Therefore, a PIL for a writ of quo warranto in respect of an appointment to a constitutional position would not be barred on the basis of the judgments rendered by this Court and mentioned above.”

The bench averred that “The appointment of the respondent was done by following the mandated procedure laid down in constitution of India. In the FIR the allegation was of corruption but it seems like that the petitioner has been used by a person to file petition; because the petitioner has no answer regarding where he found the judicial documents from in regarding respondent no.3 which establishes that the Petitioner didn’t come to court with clean hand, clean soul and clean mind. We hope and trust that the State of Himachal Pradesh must step in and take some urgent steps to frame memorandum of procedure, administrative guidelines and parameters for selection of appointment of members of commission.”

Image source-

Judgment source- Hem Raj v. State of HP and others