Baiju’s response centres on the constitutional limits governing action against the chairman and members of the recruitment body. He maintains that the Governor must act in accordance with the Constitution, raising questions about the procedure followed in sending the recommendation to the President.
The development emerged on Sunday, October 25, after details of Arlekar’s communication became public. The former Governor submitted the recommendation about a week before relinquishing his responsibilities in Kerala and moving to Tamil Nadu. Om Prakash Mathur has succeeded him as Governor.
The communication reportedly seeks the removal not only of Baiju but also of other commission members, citing complaints and alleged irregularities in recruitment examinations. The full recommendation has not been made public, leaving the precise allegations against individual members unclear.
Baiju’s decision to consult lawyers does not itself amount to a court challenge. No petition filed on his behalf, or order initiating his removal, has been confirmed. His legal options will depend on the communication and any subsequent action by constitutional authorities.
Article 317 of the Constitution establishes safeguards for the removal of Public Service Commission members. Ordinarily, removal for misbehaviour requires the President to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, which must conduct an inquiry and report that removal is warranted.
The Constitution also identifies limited circumstances in which the President may order removal without that inquiry, including insolvency, prohibited paid employment and incapacity arising from infirmity of mind or body. None of those grounds has been publicly established against Baiju.
A Governor can suspend a state commission chairman or member after the President has referred a misbehaviour allegation to the Supreme Court, pending the President’s final decision. The power to appoint commission members therefore does not confer an unrestricted power to dismiss them.
Complaints concerning recruitment to more than a dozen other posts were also submitted to Lok Bhavan, according to accounts of the developments preceding Arlekar’s recommendation. The existence of complaints does not establish wrongdoing by the chairman or every commission member.
The PSC occupies a constitutionally protected position because its recruitment functions must operate independently of immediate political pressures. Article 316 provides for appointments by the Governor and specifies tenure protections, while Article 317 places removal under a distinct constitutional mechanism.
Any presidential consideration of the recommendation would therefore have to distinguish allegations against particular officials from grounds legally sufficient to remove constitutional officeholders. The investigation into examination irregularities and the process for removing commission members are separate proceedings, even where they concern overlapping allegations.
Arlekar’s recommendation was disclosed after his departure from Kerala, although it was sent while he still held office. Officials familiar with the communication have described the intervention as unusual in the state’s experience.
The commission conducts recruitment for government departments and several public bodies. Its examination procedures, internal vigilance findings and records of recruitment decisions remain relevant to the ongoing Crime Branch inquiries.
(The article ‘PSC consults lawyers on next course of action’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
