HP High Court quashes rejection of HPERC panel, sets Nov 10 deadline for appointment

Shimla, Oct 28,

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the state government’s decision to reject a selection panel for the post of Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC), holding that the government cannot sit in appeal over the suitability assessment made by the statutory Selection Committee.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma, while allowing a petition filed by Pankaj Rai, directed the state government to complete the appointment process on the basis of the Selection Committee’s recommendations dated September 14, 2025, by November 10, 2026.

Setting aside the government’s decision dated September 16, 2025, and the consequential notification, the court held that the rejection of the panel was arbitrary, irrational and beyond the government’s statutory authority under the Electricity Act, 2003.

“The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that the Government has no role in determining the suitability of a candidate,” the Bench observed in paragraph 82 of the judgment. It clarified that the government could question a recommendation if an ineligible candidate had been recommended, but the assessment of suitability rested exclusively with the Selection Committee.

Also read: HP High Court directs Centre to produce prosecution sanction file in Chief Secretary Â Saxena extension case

The dispute arose after the Selection Committee interviewed candidates for the HPERC Chairperson’s post on September 14, 2025, and unanimously recommended Pankaj Rai and Rajiv Sood as suitable candidates, without assigning any order of preference. The government subsequently rejected the panel and cancelled the selection process.

Rai challenged the decision, contending that the government had exceeded its authority by reassessing the candidates’ suitability and relying on considerations not prescribed under Section 84(1) of the Electricity Act.

The state government defended its decision, arguing that the recommended candidates did not have the standing and seniority of other applicants, including senior IAS officers and technocrats with greater exposure to the power sector. It also cited alleged procedural irregularities in the selection process and the absence of recorded reasons for the committee’s recommendations.

Rejecting the argument that seniority or higher administrative rank could be decisive, the court observed in paragraph 76: “Length of experience/standing does not matter as a standalone metric in the field of knowledge.”

The Bench further held that seniority in service or age could be relevant factors but could not be the sole criteria for assessing a candidate’s standing, knowledge and capacity to deal with issues in the relevant fields.

In paragraph 73, the court made it clear that Section 84(1) of the Electricity Act did not contemplate appointment of the Commission’s Chairman exclusively from among senior officers, apex-scale IAS officers, senior technocrats or persons who had previously headed particular institutions.

The judgment also highlights the distinction between the government’s role as appointing authority and the Selection Committee’s statutory responsibility for assessing suitability. Under Sections 82(5) and 85 of the Electricity Act, the appointment is made by the state government on the committee’s recommendations.

“The discretion of the Government is available for choosing either of the two recommended candidates, but not for rejecting the panel on the ground that other applicants, in the opinion of the Government, were more suitable, more capable, or senior to the persons included in the panel,” the court held in paragraph 85.

The Bench concluded that the government’s decision was legally unsustainable, observing in paragraph 90 that “the action of the respondents is arbitrary, and arbitrariness is an antithesis of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Allowing the writ petition, the court quashed the impugned decision and notification and directed the respondents to complete the appointment process by November 10, 2026, on the basis of the panel recommended on September 14, 2025.

The judgment does not itself appoint either candidate as HPERC Chairman. The state government must complete the appointment process in accordance with the court’s directions and the existing recommendations.