Chhattisgarh High Court Directs State Government to Respond to CIC Appointment Petition
The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued a directive to the state government, ordering it to file a detailed response within a strict timeframe of four weeks. This order comes in response to a significant petition that challenges the entire appointment process for the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and the state information commissioners, raising serious allegations of procedural lapses and lack of transparency.
Petition Alleges Multiple Irregularities in Selection Process
Justice P P Sahu delivered this directive after conducting a preliminary hearing on the petition, which was filed by counsel Ali Asgar on behalf of Rajnandgaon resident Pradeep Sharma. The petition strongly contends that the state government failed to adhere to the prescribed legal provisions and established guidelines during the crucial selection process for these key transparency positions.
The petitioner asserts that several grave irregularities occurred, fundamentally undermining the principles of fairness and transparency in public appointments. Sharma specifically points out that the guidelines meticulously laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as the Namit Sharma and Anjali Bhardwaj rulings were not followed, which sets a dangerous precedent for administrative appointments.
Key Allegations Include Conflict of Interest and Eligibility Inconsistencies
One of the most serious allegations detailed in the petition revolves around a clear conflict of interest during the interview phase. The petition claims that Amitabh Jain, who served as the chief secretary of the Chhattisgarh government, was interviewed for the prestigious post of Chief Information Commissioner by his own subordinates. These subordinates included additional chief secretaries and members of the very search committee responsible for the selection, raising ethical concerns about impartiality.
Furthermore, the petition highlights glaring inconsistencies in the eligibility criteria applied to candidates. It states that in 2024, two candidates were initially declared ineligible for the post of information commissioner based on the existing norms. However, in a surprising turn of events, these same candidates were later declared eligible and subsequently selected for the commission merely six months later, without a clear explanation for this reversal.
Petitioner Challenges Unconventional Grading System
Adding to the list of grievances, the petitioner has also challenged the unconventional grading system employed during the selection process. Instead of utilizing a traditional and transparent numerical marking system, the committee opted for an 'A, B, C' grading scale. The petition argues vehemently that there was no clear, publicly available marking table or rubric for assessing experience or interview performance.
This lack of a defined scoring mechanism, according to the petition, effectively deprived numerous qualified and deserving candidates of a fair and equal opportunity to compete for these positions. The opaque nature of the grading process is seen as a major flaw that compromises the integrity of the entire appointment procedure.
Legal Proceedings and Broader Context
During the court hearing, Additional Advocate General Yashwant Singh Thakur appeared on behalf of the state government to present its initial stance. The matter of appointments for information commissioners across all Indian states has been under continuous and vigilant monitoring by the Supreme Court of India, emphasizing the national importance of maintaining transparency in these crucial roles.
The Chhattisgarh High Court's directive now places the onus on the state government to provide a comprehensive and legally sound response, addressing each of the allegations raised in the petition. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for appointment processes not only in Chhattisgarh but potentially in other states as well, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to constitutional and judicial mandates in public appointments.
