KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the selection of five State Information Commissioners (SIC) - P R Devadas, Abi Kuriakose, Ankathil Ajai Kumar, Abdul Majeed and Royce Chirayil recommended for appointment by the previous UDF Government.
The selection committee consisted of then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, then Leader of Opposition V S Achuthanandan and then Industries Minister P K Kunhalikutty. Despite the dissent expressed by Achuthanandan, the selection committee recommended the names proposed by them for appointment as the SIC.
When the recommendations of the committee were forwarded to the Governor for appointment, they were returned with a directive to verify claims of eminence in public life and their knowledge and experience in their respective fields as specified by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Namit Sharma case of 2013.
The government conducted a verification and forwarded the file, only for it to be returned by the Governor again stating the documents relied upon to support the claims of eminence have not been mentioned.
The candidates then approached the court against the Governor’s decision and the Single Bench ruled in their favour and directed to appoint them.
The Single Judge observed the Governor had no discretion at all in the matter and he should have approved the appointment of the petitioners at the first instance itself. By this time the Left Government, which came to power, chose to file an appeal challenging the order of the Single Bench.
The Division Bench has now held there was no evidence available in the records as to how the other two members overruled the objections of then Opposition leader against the manner of short- listing of applicants.
The manner in which the short-listing was done, as to who did it and what was the criteria for short-listing was not discernible from the records, it held. The court held none of the persons selected are having ‘eminence in public life’ as mandated by the RTI Act. The court further said the Governor had every authority to call for the records pertaining to selection and that he was not a rubber stamp.
UDF government had recommended appointment of five SICs overruling the dissent of the then Opposition.
Governor returned the file twice.
Appointees approached HC, Single Bench ruled in their favour.
Left Government filed appeal in Division Bench which set aside the single bench order as well as the recommendation.
HC: No evidence available as to how the other two members overruled objections of the then Opposition leader against the manner of short-listing of applicants.
HC: None of the persons selected are having ‘eminence in public life’ as mandated by the RTI Act.