Jaipur, July 1 (IANS) The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday sought clarification from the state government on the criteria adopted for appointing the Chairman and members of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).

The Court also directed the government to produce the original records relating to the appointments of the Commission’s current members.

The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma and Justice Manish Sharma while hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by the Society for Public Grievance and Subhash Siyag.

The petitions challenge the appointments of RPSC Acting Chairman Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh and members Kailash Chand Meena and Ayub Khan.

According to the petitions, all three appointments were made by the then Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot just hours before the Model Code of Conduct for the Rajasthan Assembly elections came into effect.

During the hearing, the Bench observed, “We have already observed the functioning of these members during the hearing of the SI recruitment case as well.”

It needs to be mentioned here that Kesari Singh and members Kailash Chand Meena and Ayub Khan were appointed as RPSC members in 2023, hours ahead of the announcement of election dates by the Election Commission of India by the then Congress government.

Recently, the state government gave Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh additional charge as chairman of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after the retirement of former chairman and ex-DGP Utkal Ranjan Sahoo.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Shivcharan Gupta and Himanshu Jain argued that the government had made political appointments to a constitutional body responsible for conducting government recruitments.

They contended that appointments to the RPSC should be based on merit rather than political considerations.

The petitioners also pointed to videos allegedly showing Kesari Singh making political remarks on social media, arguing that such conduct was incompatible with holding a constitutional office.

They alleged that the appointments had been made in an arbitrary manner.

The state government argued that the matter pertains to service appointments and therefore cannot be challenged through a Public Interest Litigation.

However, the High Court observed that it has the power to judicially review constitutional appointments and sought details of the basis on which the appointments were made.

The Bench directed the government to disclose the criteria followed while selecting the Chairman and members of the RPSC.

It also asked whether the appointees had submitted any formal applications before being selected and ordered the production of the original appointment records for examination.

–IANS

arc/dan