HARGOVIND PANT Vs. RAGHUKUL TILAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order of reversion passed against him by the 4th respondent in his capacity as the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. The order of reversion was challenged on several grounds, but they were all negatived by the Full Bench and the writ petition was dismissed on a preliminary hearing. The petitioner has raised the same grounds of challenge in this special leave petition, but barring one ground, which calls for a reasoned judgment, we do not think there are any other grounds which require detailed consideration and we reject them in limine. The only ground which needs to be considered and which we propose to dispose of by this judgment is a constitutional one, namely, whether the appointment of the 1st respondent as Governor of Rajasthan is valid. This question becomes material because if it is found that the 1st respondent could not be validly appointed as Governor of Rajasthan and his appointment as Governor is invalid, he would not be the Chancellor of the Rajasthan University and he would have no authority to appoint the 4th respondent as Acting Vice-Chancellor under S. 12, sub-sec. (7) of the University of Rajasthan Act and if the appointment of the 4th respondent as Acting Vice-Chancellor is invalid, the impugned order of reversion made by him would fall. We are, therefore, called upon to consider in this special leave petition whether the appointment of the 1st respondent as Governor of Rajasthan is valid. The only ground on which the validity of the appointment has been assailed is that the 1st respondent was a member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission during 1958-59 and he was, therefore, by reason of Art. 319, Cl. (d) of the Constitution, ineligible for any employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State and since the office of Governor is an employment under the Government of India, the 1st respondent could not validly be appointed to that office. This ground raises a question of considerable importance relating to the applicability of Art. 319, Cl. (d) to the office of Governor.

(2.) We shall have to consider the true nature of the office of Governor in order to determine whether it is an employment under the Government of India, but before we do so, we may first have a look at Art. 319. This Article consists of Cls. (a) to (d) and these clauses, on a combined reading, impose prohibition on holding of any employment under the Government of India or the Government of a State by the Chairman or member of the Union Public Service Commission or a State Public Service Commission on his ceasing to be such Chairman or member. This prohibition has been enacted in public interest with a view to ensuring that no allurement is held out to the Chairman or members of the Union Public Service Commission or a State Public Service Commission which would deflect them from the path of rectitude and duty. The Union and State Public Service Commissions are charged inter alia with the duty of advising the Government on various matters relating to civil services and civil posts such as methods of recruitment, appointments, promotions and transfers and disciplinary matters and it is of utmost importance for the efficiency and integrity of the civil services that this duty should be performed by the Union and State Public Service Commissions objectively, impartially and without being influenced by any extraneous considerations. The Union and State Public Service Commissions have vast powers of recruitment to an immence and increasing host of Government posts and in a country with considerable unemployment, these powers may be prone to be abused if the office of Chairman and member of the Union and State Public Service Commissions is exposed to executive or political pressures. The prospect and peril of the executive or the politician trying to influence overtly or covertly the Chairmen and members of the Union and State Public Service Commissions by dangling the carrot or holding out the possibility of employment under the Government after the expiry of their term of office may corrupt the integrity of the institution of the Union and State Public Service Commissions. It is true that by and large the Chairman and members of the Union and State Public Service Commissions would be men of proven merit and integrity and no allurement, howsoever attractive, would deflect them from doing their duty without fear or favour, but even so, the possibility of obtaining employment under the Government in future may consciously or unconsciously induce them to fall in line with the wishes of the executive or the politician. The office of the Chairman and members of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions must, therefore be zealously kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. It was pointed out as far back as 1924 by the Royal Commission on Superior Services in India, popularly called the Lee Commission:

(3.) We are concerned in this special leave petition only with clause (d) of Art. 319 since the 1st respondent was a member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and it is on account of that fact that it is claimed that he was ineligible to be appointed Governor of Rajasthan. Clause (d) of Art. 319 provides:"On ceasing to hold office..... a member other than the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of that or any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State". It is, therefore, obvious that the 1st respondent could be appointed Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or Chairman of the Rajasthan or any other State Public Service Commission, but he was ineligible for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. Now, it was not the case of the petitioner that the office of Governor was an employment under the Government of a State and the only question which, therefore, requires to be considered is whether the office of Governor can be said to be an employment under the Government of India. If it is, then undoubtedly the 1st respondent could not be appointed Governor of Rajasthan and his appointment would be invalid. But we are of the view that howsoever wide and expansive a meaning we may give to the words "employment.....under the Government of India", the office of Governor cannot come within it.