Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in Shiva Shankarappas Sahukar v. Dr. B. Prabhudev & Ors. (WP No. 20949/2026), granted interim relief to the Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) by staying the operation of a resolution passed by members of the Commission calling upon him to resign from office. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held, as a prima facie view, that the members of the Commission could not ask a Chairman appointed by the Governor to resign, particularly in light of the constitutional protection contained in Article 317 of the Constitution of India.
The dispute arose after a meeting of the Commission held on June 19, 2026. The Chairman had recused himself from the meeting because one of the agenda items related to the reservation claim of his daughter, who had applied for the post of Group ‘C’ Industrial Extension Officer. During his absence, the meeting was chaired by the senior-most member. Under an additional agenda item, the Commission passed a resolution requesting the Chairman to resign on moral grounds after allegations surfaced that his daughter had submitted an incorrect caste, income and asset certificate. The resolution was subsequently forwarded to the Chief Secretary and the Governor, prompting the Chairman to challenge the proceedings before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the impugned resolution was without jurisdiction and contrary to both the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act and the Constitution of India. It was argued that Section 5 of the Act does not permit members to introduce and decide an additional agenda after the Secretary has already prepared and circulated the agenda for the meeting. Therefore, the resolution itself was procedurally invalid.
The petitioner further relied upon Section 7 of the Act, submitting that where the Chairman is absent from a meeting, he retains the statutory power to reconsider the decisions taken in his absence. It was argued that after the meeting, the Chairman approved all other resolutions but withheld approval only with respect to the additional agenda seeking his resignation. He had directed that the matter be placed before the Commission for reconsideration in his presence. However, instead of following this procedure, the Secretary allegedly forwarded the report to the Chief Secretary and the Governor without any fresh direction from the Commission.
The petitioner also submitted that under Section 11 of the Act, the Secretary has no independent authority to forward such reports on his own. More importantly, reliance was placed on Article 317 of the Constitution, which provides a specific constitutional mechanism for the removal of the Chairman or a member of a Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, only the President or the Governor can initiate such action in accordance with the constitutional procedure, and the Commission’s members have no authority to compel the Chairman to resign.
The respondents were yet to advance detailed submissions before the Court. However, the background of the resolution indicated that it had been passed following allegations concerning the Chairman’s daughter’s application for public employment. The members considered these allegations serious enough to call upon the Chairman to resign on moral grounds and thereafter communicated the matter to the constitutional authorities for appropriate action.
Court’s Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the operation of the impugned resolution and restrained the members of the Commission from taking any further action based on it.
While issuing the interim order, Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that Article 317 of the Constitution provides constitutional protection regarding the removal of the Chairman or members of a Public Service Commission. The Court prima facie held that members of the Commission could not require a Chairman, who is appointed by the Governor, to resign through an internal resolution. Such an action appeared to be beyond their statutory and constitutional authority.
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s contention regarding Sections 5 and 7 of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act. It observed that these issues required detailed examination during the final hearing, particularly the legality of introducing an additional agenda and the Chairman’s statutory power to seek reconsideration of decisions taken during his absence.
Considering the constitutional issues involved and the challenge to the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Court found it appropriate to protect the petitioner until the matter is finally adjudicated. Accordingly, it stayed the operation of the resolution dated June 19, 2026, and restrained the respondents from acting upon it.
The writ petition has been posted for further hearing on August 11, 2026. The final outcome will determine the scope of the powers of members of a Public Service Commission vis-à-vis its Chairman and clarify the interplay between the Karnataka Public Service Commission Act and the constitutional safeguards contained in Article 317 of the Constitution.