HP High Court Quashes State Govt's Move to Scrap HPERC Chairman Selection, Orders Appointment by Nov 10
SHIMLA: In a significant blow to the Himachal Pradesh government, the High Court on Wednesday quashed the state's decision to cancel the selection process for the post of Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC).
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma directed the state government to complete the appointment process by November 10, 2026, strictly on the basis of the two-name panel recommended by the statutory Selection Committee in September 2025.
The Controversy
The legal battle stemmed from an August 14, 2025 advertisement inviting applications for the HPERC Chairman's post. Out of 16 applicants, 12 appeared for the interview on September 14, 2025. Notably, then-Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena (1990-batch IAS) was also an applicant for the post and had to recuse himself from the three-member Selection Committee.
The remaining two members of the Selection Committee—headed by retired High Court Justice V.K. Sharma and co-member Jishnu Barua (Chairperson of the Central Electricity Authority)—unanimously recommended a panel of two names in no order of preference: 2014-batch IAS officer Pankaj Rai (currently serving as Deputy Director, Administration, at PGIMER Chandigarh) and Rajiv Sood.
However, just two days later, on September 16, 2025, the state government rejected the recommended panel, and formally cancelled the entire selection process via a notification later that month. Challenging this cancellation, Pankaj Rai approached the High Court.
State's Defence vs. Petitioner's Plea
During the hearings, the state government defended its decision as a bona fide "policy decision" taken in public interest. The state argued that:
Rai belonged to the 2014 IAS batch and lacked the "standing" and seniority required under Section 84(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, to coordinate with utility heads equivalent to the Chief Secretary's rank.
The Selection Committee overlooked much senior IAS officers from the 1987, 1988, and 1990 batches—specifically Ram Subhag Singh, Sanjay Gupta, and Prabodh Saxena—who had also applied and had greater experience in the power sector.
The process suffered from procedural flaws, including the advertisement being issued before the formal constitution of the Selection Committee.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocates P.S. Patwalia and Shrawan Dogra argued that Rai, who holds a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering and an MBA in Finance along with extensive administrative experience, fully met the statutory criteria.
They contended that the state government could not sit as an "appellate authority" over a high-powered statutory Selection Committee. They further alleged that after the then-Chief Secretary failed to make it to the final panel, the selection process was scuttled on flimsy grounds.
High Court's Observations
Rejecting the state's arguments as "arbitrary, irrational, and beyond the domain of the Government," the bench made several sharp observations:
"Wisdom Not Measured by Grey Hair": Dismissing the state's obsession with IAS seniority and apex pay scales, the court noted that the Electricity Act does not reserve the post for retired Chief Secretaries or apex-scale officers.
Citing the Ashtavakra Geeta, Justice Thakur wrote that "true wisdom is not measured by the greyness of one's hair, but by the clarity of one's understanding," emphasizing that practical skill and capability outweigh mere length of service.
Usurping Statutory Powers: The court held that under the Electricity Act, 2003, the power to assess the "suitability" of candidates vests exclusively with the Selection Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge.
The state government's discretion is strictly limited to choosing one of the two recommended candidates, not rejecting the panel itself because its preferred senior officers were left out.
Case of 'Legal Mala Fide': While no personal mala fide was alleged, the bench termed the government's action a classic case of "legal mala fide," where the state assumed powers it did not possess under the statute.
Procedural Excuses Dismissed: The court also threw out the state's objection regarding the timing of the advertisement, noting that the Selection Committee had implicitly ratified the advertisement by interviewing the candidates, and the state itself had allowed the process to continue after consulting the Law Department.
Quashing the September 2025 cancellation orders, the bench mandated the state government to finalize the appointment of the HPERC Chairperson from the recommended panel of Pankaj Rai and Rajiv Sood on or before November 10, 2026.
