PIL challenges Gaikwad’s appointment as chief SIC

The petitioners — Krishna Raut,Sulaiman Bhimani,Gaurang Vora,Mohammed Afzal and Anil Galgali — claimed his appointment was “in violation of Right to Information Act,2005,the Constitution and principles of natural justice”.

“As a former chief secretary,he enjoyed a privileged and influential position vis-a-vis the high-powered committee that made the appointment,” they said and demanded that his selection be quashed and rules framed for appointment of chief SIC.

They also objected to section 15 (5) of RTI Act,which mentions the fields from which a chief SIC can be appointed. Apart from “administration or governance”,the section mentioned fields such as law,science and technology,social service and journalism,the petitioners said and demanded its quashing.

“This diabolical clause is a legal loophole that encourages respondents [state government to conduct selections in a way that is prejudicial to public interest.”

The petitioners contended that Gaikwad deliberately kept the office of chief SIC vacant for over 10 months. They said merely six days after his retirement,a meeting was convened to fill the post.

The plea notes Gaikwad will directly hear cases relating to Mantralaya,which he once headed.

“The appointment of chief SIC is,therefore,a life and liberty issue,not a trivial matter,” it adds.

The PIL that came up before a bench headed by Chief Justice Mohit Shah on Tuesday has been posted for hearing on October 12.