Another Petition Filed Against Nimmagadda's Appointment As AP SEC

AMARAVATI: Another petition was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday to restrain Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar from continuing as the state election commissioner (SEC).

Recently, the High Court gave a verdict that the SEC should not be appointed with any of the recommendations from either the Chief Minister or the State Cabinet and that it should be completely decided by the Governor of the state.

Following which, retired IG Dr A Sundarkumar Das had approached the HC saying that Ramesh is not eligible to continue as Election Commissioner as per the recent High Court verdict.

Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar was appointed as SEC in 2016 on the recommendation from the then Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, by issuing the order number 11. But if the recent verdict of the HC is taken into consideration, then the appointment of Ramesh Kumar itself is not valid as he is clearly appointed by the former Chief Minister.

Das has appealed to the High Court in his Co-Warrento Petition to question Sanjay Shashi to seek an explanation over his authority to continue as the Election Commissioner of the state.  In this petition, along with Ramesh Kumar, the secretary-general of the government, the chief secretary of the panchayat raj and the secretaries of the Election Commission were named as respondents.

The petitioner appealed to HC to cancel the GO 11 issued by then Chief Minister for appointing Ramesh Kumar as SEC.

The petitioner sought from HC to abolish the Section-200 (2) of the AP Panchayati Raj Act, which forces the governor to appoint an officer who is below the rank of chief secretary to the SEC as per the recommendation of state government, as it is unconstitutional.

Das said that according to article 243K (1) of the Constitution, the Governor has the right to appoint the SEC which need not be decided by the state government. However, Section 200 (2) of the AP Panchayati Raj act says that the appointment of the Election Commissioner should be made on the recommendation of the Cabinet of Ministers, which is completely contrasted to the above section.

The petitioner said that the HC recent verdict follows article 243K (1) of the Constitution, following which the appointment of Ramesh Kumar itself is not valid.