Governor’s order for fresh selection of Water Commission members upheld by High Court

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

R.R. Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand (High Court of Uttarakhand)

Writ Petition No. 726 of 2017 (M/S)

Date: 3rd March 2020

Key Takeaways

• Proper Constitution of Selection Committee is Mandatory: The selection committee for the Commission must be formed strictly as per Section 6 of the Uttarakhand Water Management and Regulatory Act, 2013. Any deviation invalidates the selection process.
• Governor’s Role: The Governor can intervene if the selection process is not in accordance with the law.
• Qualifications Matter: Candidates must strictly meet the qualifications specified in the Act. Equivalence of posts must be clearly established.
• No Locus Standi: If the main appointment (Chairperson) is not finalized, a candidate for Member cannot claim a right to appointment or challenge the process.
• Court’s Approach: The High Court will not interfere if the selection process is found to be legally flawed and the petitioner is not prejudiced.

Issue

Was the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Member of the Uttarakhand Water Resources Management and Regulatory Commission valid, and did the Governor have the authority to order a fresh selection process?

Facts

• The Uttarakhand Water Resources Management and Regulatory Commission was constituted under the Uttarakhand Water Management and Regulatory Act, 2013.
• The State Government advertised for the posts of Chairperson and Members in July 2016.
• R.R. Bhatt, a retired Chief Engineer (Level-II), applied for the post of Member (Technical).
• The selection committee shortlisted candidates and recommended Mr. Ravi Shankar as Chairperson and R.R. Bhatt as Member.
• The Chief Minister approved the recommendations, and appointment letters were issued.
• A complaint was made alleging the selection committee was not properly constituted as per Section 6 of the Act.
• The Governor, after seeking a report, found that the selection committee was not properly formed and ordered a fresh selection process on 3.1.2017 and 4.1.2017.
• Bhatt challenged this order in the High Court, seeking to quash the Governor’s order and to be appointed as Member.

Arguments

Petitioner (R.R. Bhatt)

• The Governor’s role is limited to administering the oath, not interfering in the selection process.
• The selection committee was validly constituted, and the process was approved by the Chief Minister.
• The Governor’s order was without jurisdiction and passed without giving Bhatt a hearing.
• Bhatt claimed he met the qualifications for the post.

Respondents (State of Uttarakhand)

• The selection committee was not properly constituted as per Section 6(1)(b) of the Act.
• The required member from the Central Water Commission was not properly nominated.
• The Director, Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, did not participate.
• Bhatt did not clearly establish that his post was equivalent to Chief Engineer as required by the Act.
• The Governor acted within his authority to ensure compliance with the law.

Key Legal Precedents & Statutory Provisions

• Section 3, 4, and 6 of the Uttarakhand Water Management and Regulatory Act, 2013:
• Section 3: Establishment of the Commission.
• Section 4: Qualifications for Chairperson and Members.
• Section 6: Constitution and function of the Selection Committee (specifies the exact composition required).
• No specific case law names are cited in the judgment. The court relies on the principle that when a statute prescribes a method for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all (a settled legal principle).

Judgement

• The High Court found that the selection committee was not properly constituted as per Section 6 of the Act:
• The required nominee from the Central Water Commission was not properly nominated.
• The Director, IIM Kashipur, did not participate.
• Bhatt did not prove that his post (Chief Engineer Level-II) was equivalent to Chief Engineer as required by the Act.
• Since the selection committee was not validly constituted, the entire selection process was vitiated.
• The Governor’s order to start the selection process afresh was lawful and justified.
• The writ petition was dismissed as being without merit. No costs were awarded.

FAQs

Q1: Why did the court dismiss Bhatt’s petition?

A: The court found that the selection committee was not properly constituted as per the law, and Bhatt did not meet the required qualifications for the post. Therefore, the Governor’s order for a fresh selection was valid.

Q2: What is the significance of Section 6 of the Act?

A: Section 6 specifies the exact composition of the selection committee. Any deviation from this makes the selection process invalid.

Q3: Can the Governor interfere in the selection process?

A: Yes, if the process is not in accordance with the law, the Governor can intervene to ensure compliance.

Q4: What happens next for the Commission?

A: The State must now constitute a new selection committee as per the Act and restart the selection process.

Q5: Did Bhatt get any relief?

A: No, the court found no merit in his petition and dismissed it.

Q6: What does this mean for future appointments?

A: Future selection committees must be strictly constituted as per the Act, and candidates must clearly meet the prescribed qualifications.