Inform whether HP RERA appointments notified or not: Himachal HC

The HP High Court directed the state government to file an affidavit informing therein that the appointment for the posts of Chairman and the Members of Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) have been notified or not.

A division Bench comprising Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma further ordered that “keeping in view the larger public interest, if the appointment has not been notified, affidavit be filed as to why it has not been done and what is the specific reason that the state has withheld the recommendations of the Selection Committee.”

The court passed this order on a petition filed by one Atul Sharma seeking quashing of extension given to Prabodh Saxena as Chief Secretary of the state government on the ground that it was given in clear violation of the Central Services Rules and guidelines of Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT).

It was alleged in the petition that vigilance clearance cannot be granted to an officer who is an accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged the authority concerned has wrongly granted vigilance clearance to Prabodh Saxena despite the fact that a chargesheet has been filed against him for corruption.

It was contended that Prabodh Saxena has also applied for the post of Chairman of the HP RERA and the posts of Chief Secretary and Chairman of HP RERA are sensitive and as per the DoPT guidelines require strict scrutiny before granting extensions or deputations or appointment to sensitive posts. While hearing the matter for some time the court observed that “a perusal of paper book would go on to show that Prabodh Saxena had also applied for the post of Chairman, HP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA), which is also clear from annexure appended with the plea.”

The court asked the counsel for the state to inform the court why the state has not notified the appointment of chairman and members of the HP RERA and why it has withheld the recommendations of the Selection Committee for these posts.

During the course of hearing the counsel for the State prayed time to file necessary affidavit as to whether the appointment regarding the post of Chairman and the Members has been notified. While granting the same the court listed the matter for consideration on May 15. — OC