R V BIDAP Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in these writ petitions is, when a Member of a State Public Service Commission or Union Public Service Commission is subsequently appointed as the Chairman of that Commission, whether the term of six years during which he shall hold his office commences from the date on which he enters upon the office of the Chairman or from the date on which he entered office as a Member?

(2.) Sri R.V.Bidap petitioner in WP. No. 774 of 1973 who is respondent No. 2 in WP. No. 893 of 1973 having been appointed as a Member of the Mysore Public Srivice Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'The Commission' by the Governor of Mysore assumed his office on 20th March 1967. Subsequently he was appointed as the Chairman of that Commission by the Governor by a Notification No. GAD. 60 SSC. 68-1 dated 10-2-1969 in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 316(1) of the Constitution. The said notification stated that 'the Governor of Mysore is pleased to appoint Sri R. V. Bidap, as Chairman, of the Mysore Public Commission with effect from 15th February, 1969 (Forenoon)'. The appointment of Sri Bidap as the Chairman of the Commission was made consequent on the expiry of the term of office of Sri R. Chinnigaramiah, who was holding the said office from 15-2-1963. If the term of the office of the Chairman of Sri Bidap has to be computed from 15-2-1969 then he is entitled to hold that office till 14-2-1975; but if the said term has to be reckoned from 20-3-1967 when he assumed office as Member of the Commission, then, he is not entitled to hold the office of the Chairman beyond 19-3-1973. The question has to be decided on an interpretation of Arts. 316 and 319 of the Constitution. So far as this Court is concerned the question is concluded by the decision of this Court in Mariswamy v. State of Mysore WP. 6492 of 1969 WP. 5031 and 3758 of 1966 in three writ petitions filed by H. M. Mariswamy and two others challenging the selection of Respondents 3 to 15 in WP. Nos. 8492 of 1989 made by the Commission and appointed by the Government as District Educational Officers, on the ground that Sri R. Chinnigaramiah who functioned as the Chairman of the Commission at the relevant time was not entitled to do so and that his participation in the selection had vitiated the 'entire selection. Sri R. Chinnigaramiah was first appointed as Member of the Commission by a Notification dated 4-7-1962 and he assumed office on 6-7-1962. On 11th February, 1963 he addressed a letter to the Governor tendering his resignation as a Member with effect from 14-2-1963. On 13-2-1963 the Secretary to the Government wrote a letter to Sri R. Chinnigaramiah informing him that his resignaton has been accepted by the Government with effect from 14th February, 1963. On the same day, a Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Cl. (1) of Art. 316 of the Constitution under which the Governor appointed Sri R. Chinnigaramiah as Chairman of the Commission with effect from the fere noon of 15-2-63. He continued to function as such until he vacated office on 14-2-1969. The candidates for selection to the posts of District Educational Officers were interviewed by the Commission during the time when Sri R. Chinnigaramiah was functioning as Chairman. If the term of his office of six years was required to be counted from the date of the assumption of office as Member he would have ceased as Chairman on 5-7-1968 and he could not have continued as the Chairman beyond that date. The State took the stand that Sri Chinnagaramiah was entitled to hold the office of the Chairman of the Commission for a term of six years commencing from the date of assumption of his office viz. 15-2-1963. The petitioners who had challenged the selections made by the Commission when Sri Channigaramiah was functioning as the Chairman, relied on the majority decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dhirendra Krishna Viswas v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR, 1966 Cal. 290 (FB). This Court on an exhaustive consideration of the relevant provisions of the Constitution disagreed With the majority view in Dhirendra Krishna's case (2) and held that Sri Chennigaramiah was entitled to continue to function as Chairman for the full period of six years from 15-2-1963 till 14-2-1969 and therefore, the selections were valid. The judgment of this Court was delivered by the Chief Justice. According to the said judgment which is yet unreported, although the Chairman is also a member of the Commission, the two offices the office of the Chairman and the office of a Member are distinct and separate and that when full effect is given to the provisions of clause (2) of Art. 316 and cl (d) of Art. 319, as one is not controlled by the other, the term of office of the Chairman of a commission of six years provided under cl. (2) of Art. 316 of the Constitution commences from the date of assumption of the office of Chairman, although before his appointment as Chairman, he was a member of that Commission.

(3.) There is no decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view and therefore, the decision of this Court in Mariswamy's case (1) has settled the law so far as this Court is concerned. Notwithstanding the clear decision of this Court according to which Sri Bidap should be entitled to hold office of the Chairman of the Commission for the full period of six years commencing from 15-2-1969, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Mysore answering a short notice question by a member of the Legislative Council stated that Sri Bidap's term w,ould expire on 20-3-1973. When the attention of the Chief Minister was drawn to the aforesaid ruling of this Court and also to the opinion of the Attorney General of India circulated to the State Governments to the same effect, he stated that as there are conflicting opinions on the same issue, it has become difficult for him to accept the ruling of this Court. Vide Annexure 'F' to the WP, No: 774 of 1973 which is a Press Report of the proceedings of the Mysore Legislative Council dated 17-3-1973. Reference has been made to the said report in the pleadings and has not been denied by the respondent State. From the answers given by the Chief Minister in the State Legislature, it became evident that the State Government wanted to treat Sri Bidap's term of office as coming to an end on 20-3-1973. Apprehending that another person would be appointed to the office of the Chairman with effect from the said date and a constitutional deadlock would be created, Sri Bidap has preferred WP. No. 774 of 1973 praying for a declaration that the tenure of his office of Chairman of the Commission is for a period of six years from 15th February, 1969 and for issue of a writ in the nature of an injunction restraining the State Government from making any appointment to the office of the Chairman of the Commission till the expiry of the term of his office or in any other manner interfering with his duties as Chairman of the Commission. Sri Bidap's writ petition was admitted by this Court on 19-3-1973 and an ad interim order was made restraining the Respondent from making any appointment to the office of the Chairman of the Commission.