Abiding HC order & deadline, Pankaj Rai appoints HPSERC Boss

Shimla, Nov 11

Bowing infront of Himachal Pradesh High court order and following its deadline Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu goverment has issued notification to appoint IAS officers and Former Director of PGI Chandigarh Pankaj Rai Chairman of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission top power body in the state regulate power tarriff and legal redressal under Electricity Act.

IAS officer Pankaj Rai has finally been appointed Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPSERC), bringing an end to a prolonged selection controversy in which the state government had earlier rejected his candidature, forcing him to approach the Himachal Pradesh High Court for relief.

The appointment, notified by the Department of MPP and Power on November 10( on high court deadline), comes after the High Court quashed the government’s decision to reject the panel recommended by the statutory Selection Committee. The irony is that the government had opposed Rai’s writ petition in the court, defending its decision to disregard the committee’s recommendations. The same government has now issued the notification appointing him to the coveted regulatory post.

Under the notification issued in the name of the Governor, Rai has been appointed for five years or until he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. His tenure will begin from the date he assumes charge as Chairperson of the Commission, after being relieved from his present department.

Also Read Major setback to Sukhu govt as HC sets aside hike of electricity duty on stone crushers

In its 70-page judgment delivered on October 28 in CWP No. 19625 of 2025, the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma had set aside the government’s decision to reject the panel containing the names of Pankaj Rai and Rajiv Sood. The court directed the government to complete the appointment process on the basis of the Selection Committee’s recommendations.

The committee, headed by retired High Court judge Justice V.K. Sharma and comprising Jishnu Barua, Chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, had unanimously recommended both candidates without assigning any order of preference. However, the state government rejected the panel, raising questions over the candidates’ seniority, experience and professional suitability.

The High Court took a critical view of the government’s approach, holding that it could not sit in appeal over the assessment of a statutory Selection Committee or reject its recommendations merely because it preferred candidates with longer service or greater seniority. The court emphasised that suitability for the post had to be assessed on the basis of knowledge, ability, integrity and professional competence rather than seniority alone.

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

Rai is considered an upright and honest officer with an engineering background. His administrative experience includes serving as Commissioner of the Shimla Municipal Corporation, Deputy Commissioner of Lahaul-Spiti and Bilaspur, and Director at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, besides holding other important assignments.

The manner in which his experience and professional credentials were initially overlooked had raised questions about the government’s assessment of merit. The High Court’s observations, particularly its emphasis that practical skill, adaptability and proven impact could outweigh time-based tenure, brought the controversy into sharper focus.

Referring to the philosophical dialogue between King Janaka and sage Ashtavakra in the “Ashtavakra Gita” the court observed that true wisdom was not measured by the greyness of one’s hair but by the clarity of one’s understanding. The observation was a pointed reminder that age, seniority and years spent in service cannot automatically establish superior competence.

Rai’s appointment thus follows a judicial intervention that exposed the limits of the government’s discretion in a statutory selection process.

The episode raises a larger question about why a candidate’s suitability, recognised by an independent selection committee, had to be established through a prolonged legal battle before the government eventually issued the appointment notification.