RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already expressed the view, in my order dated August 12, 1977 that the Governor of a State does not hold an employment under the Government of India or under the Government of a State within the meaning of Article 319 of the Constitution of India, and I now proceed to give my reasons for the aforesaid decision.

(2.) THE Rajasthan State Legislature passed an enactment Called "the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1977", substituting section 23-A in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. THE aforesaid Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 5, 1977 after it received the assent of the Governor of Rajasthan Shri Raghukul Tilak under Article 200 of the Constitution. As a result of the provisions of the amended section 23-A, the term of all Municipal Boards, elections, to which took place during the period of emergency, stood expired on the date of the commencement of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1977. THE petitioner, who was the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Sadul Sahar, election to which were held in August 1976, has filed this writ petition mainly challenging the appointment of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shri Tilak having held the office of a Member of the Rajasthan public Service Commission in the year 1959, he was not eligible for appointment to the office of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan, on account of the provisions of Article 319 of the Constitution and consequently Shri Tilak could not have given his assent to the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Bill which was passed by the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly on July 27, 1977. Clause (d) of Article 319 of the Constitution, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, runs as under: - "319. On ceasing to hold office - xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (d) 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. "

(3.) IN Article 16, the framers of the Constitution have employed the words "employment" and "appointment", but as held by Ramaswami J. , in Sukhnandan Thakur's case (supra) these words have two different conceptions. Article 155 of the Constitution, in my view, only provides for the appointment to a Constitutional office and it cannot be held that the Governor of a State holds an employment under the Government of INdia merely because he holds an office or is appointed thereto. It is difficult to conceive that there is a master and servant or an employer and an employee relationship between the Governor of a State and the Government of INdia. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Article 319 the words "appointment" and "employment" have been used to denote identical conceptions. That may or may not be so, but I am not called upon to consider this question in the present case because what is really of substance in this case is as as to whether the word 'appointment' as used in Article 155 of the Constitution connotes the same concept as the word' employment' used in clause (d) of Article 319 of the Constitution, As I have already held above, the appointment to the office of a Governor of a State under Article 155 of the Constitution is an appointment to a public office created by the Constitution, the duties and functions of which are regulated by the Constitution, itself and as such it can not be held that the Governor of a State holds an employment under the Government of INdia. As a matter of fact. Article 319 occurs in Part XIV of the Constitution which deals with "services under the Union and the States', and the expression "employment under the Government of INdia" which finds place in the various clauses of Article 319 must be cons-truned with reference to the provisions of Part XIV of the Constitution relating to Public Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and the States and has no reference to public officers created by the Constitution itself, I am, therefore, firmly of the view that the appointment of a person as a Governor of a State, under Article 155 of the Constitution can not be barred merely because such person has earlier held the office either of a Chairman or a Member of the Public Service Commission. The contention of the learned counsel in this respect is, therefore, repelled.