Rajasthan HC questions RPSC appointment criteria, seeks original records
Synopsis
The Rajasthan High Court has put the state government on notice over how it appointed the RPSC's Chairman and members — all three named in PILs that allege the placements were rushed through hours before the Model Code of Conduct kicked in ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections. The court's demand for original records and selection criteria is a rare judicial probe into the appointment mechanics of a constitutional recruitment body.
Key Takeaways
The Rajasthan High Court on 1 July sought the criteria used to appoint RPSC Chairman and members from the state government.
The court also ordered production of original appointment records for judicial examination.
PILs filed by Society for Public Grievance and Subhash Siyag challenge appointments of Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh , Kailash Chand Meena , and Ayub Khan .
All three were reportedly appointed by then Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot hours before the Model Code of Conduct took effect in 2023 .
The Division Bench — Acting Chief Justice S.P.
Sharma and Justice Manish Sharma — rejected the state's argument that the matter could not be challenged via a PIL.
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday, 1 July directed the state government to disclose the criteria used for appointing the Chairman and members of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), and to produce the original appointment records before the court. The order came during the hearing of Public Interest Litigations challenging appointments made in 2023, hours before the Model Code of Conduct came into force ahead of the Rajasthan Assembly elections.
Background to the PILs
The petitions were filed by the Society for Public Grievance and petitioner Subhash Siyag, challenging the appointments of RPSC Acting Chairman Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh and members Kailash Chand Meena and Ayub Khan. According to the petitions, all three were appointed by then Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot just hours before the Election Commission of India announced election dates and the Model Code of Conduct took effect — a timing that petitioners argue was deliberate and politically motivated.
What the Court Observed
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma and Justice Manish Sharma. The Bench noted it had already observed the functioning of these members during the hearing of the Sub-Inspector (SI) recruitment case. The court asserted its authority to judicially review constitutional appointments, rejecting the state government's contention that the matter involved service appointments and therefore could not be challenged via a PIL.
Key Directions Issued
The High Court directed the government to disclose the criteria followed while selecting the Chairman and members of the RPSC. It also asked whether the appointees had submitted formal applications prior to selection, and ordered that original appointment records be produced for judicial examination. These directions signal the court's intent to scrutinise the process, not just the outcome.
Petitioners' Arguments
Advocates Shivcharan Gupta and Himanshu Jain, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the appointments amounted to political placements in a constitutional body entrusted with conducting government recruitments. They contended that RPSC appointments must be merit-based rather than driven by political considerations. The petitioners also cited videos allegedly showing Kesari Singh making political remarks on social media, arguing such conduct was incompatible with holding a constitutional office.
What Comes Next
The state government is now required to place the appointment criteria and original records before the court at the next hearing. Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh had recently been given additional charge as RPSC Chairman following the retirement of former chairman and ex-DGP Utkal Ranjan Sahoo. The court's scrutiny could have wider implications for how constitutional bodies in Rajasthan — and potentially other states — handle last-minute appointments ahead of elections.
Point of View
It could set a precedent constraining how state governments handle constitutional vacancies in election windows — a check that is long overdue but also one that cuts across party lines, since the practice is hardly unique to any single government.
NationPress
2 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the Rajasthan High Court intervened in RPSC appointments?
The Rajasthan High Court is hearing PILs that allege the appointments of RPSC Acting Chairman Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh and members Kailash Chand Meena and Ayub Khan were made arbitrarily and politically by the then Congress government hours before the Model Code of Conduct for the 2023 Assembly elections took effect. The court has asserted its power to judicially review constitutional appointments.
Who are the RPSC members whose appointments are being challenged?
The three appointments under challenge are those of Lt Col (retired) Kesari Singh (currently serving as Acting Chairman), Kailash Chand Meena, and Ayub Khan. All three were appointed in 2023 by then Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot shortly before the Election Commission announced election dates.
What has the Rajasthan High Court directed the state government to do?
The court has directed the state government to disclose the criteria used to select the RPSC Chairman and members, clarify whether the appointees submitted formal applications before selection, and produce the original appointment records for judicial examination.
Can RPSC appointments be challenged through a PIL?
The state government argued that since the matter involves service appointments, it cannot be challenged via a PIL. However, the High Court rejected this position, holding that it has the power to judicially review appointments to constitutional bodies such as the RPSC.
What is the significance of the SI recruitment case reference by the court?
The Division Bench noted it had already observed the functioning of the three RPSC members during hearings in the Sub-Inspector recruitment case, suggesting the court had prior concerns about how the commission operated under the current appointees — adding weight to the PILs now before it.
