New Delhi, Feb 3 (PTI) – The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Bihar government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Parmar Ravi Manubhai as the Chairperson of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra took cognizance of the plea filed by lawyer Brajesh Singh, who questioned the validity of Manubhai’s appointment as the Commission’s head.
However, the court was critical of the petitioner’s involvement, noting that as a lawyer without direct affiliation to the BPSC, he may lack the necessary locus standi. "As a lawyer, you should refrain from filing such PILs when you have no direct connection with the BPSC," the bench observed. Despite this, the court proceeded to issue notices to the Bihar government and the BPSC chairperson regarding the matter.
Additionally, the bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist in the PIL.
The petition challenges the March 15, 2024, appointment of Manubhai, arguing that it violates constitutional provisions requiring individuals of "impeccable character" for key positions in public service commissions.
The plea further alleges that Manubhai was implicated in a corruption case registered by Bihar’s Vigilance Bureau, with proceedings currently pending before a special judge in Patna. "Thus, respondent number 2 (Parmar) is facing serious charges of corruption and forgery, which casts doubt on his integrity. Therefore, he should not have been appointed as the chairman of BPSC," the petition stated.
The petitioner contends that Manubhai does not meet the fundamental eligibility criteria for the constitutional post, reinforcing calls for a judicial review of his appointment.
The Supreme Court’s intervention now puts the Bihar government in the spotlight as it prepares to justify its decision before the apex court.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra took cognizance of the plea filed by lawyer Brajesh Singh, who questioned the validity of Manubhai’s appointment as the Commission’s head.
However, the court was critical of the petitioner’s involvement, noting that as a lawyer without direct affiliation to the BPSC, he may lack the necessary locus standi. "As a lawyer, you should refrain from filing such PILs when you have no direct connection with the BPSC," the bench observed. Despite this, the court proceeded to issue notices to the Bihar government and the BPSC chairperson regarding the matter.
Additionally, the bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist in the PIL.
The petition challenges the March 15, 2024, appointment of Manubhai, arguing that it violates constitutional provisions requiring individuals of "impeccable character" for key positions in public service commissions.
The plea further alleges that Manubhai was implicated in a corruption case registered by Bihar’s Vigilance Bureau, with proceedings currently pending before a special judge in Patna. "Thus, respondent number 2 (Parmar) is facing serious charges of corruption and forgery, which casts doubt on his integrity. Therefore, he should not have been appointed as the chairman of BPSC," the petition stated.
The petitioner contends that Manubhai does not meet the fundamental eligibility criteria for the constitutional post, reinforcing calls for a judicial review of his appointment.
The Supreme Court’s intervention now puts the Bihar government in the spotlight as it prepares to justify its decision before the apex court.
Last updated by a enewsx: