Judgment

KRISIINA IYER, J.:- A short issue as to the expiration of the constitutionally guaranteed tenure of office of a Member of the Public Service Commission, who, in the middle of his term, reincarnates as its Chairman and claims fresh six-year spell, has lent itself to considerable argument at the Bar, the contributory causes being the differing views of courts, varying practices of States, apparent incongruity between the paramount purpose and the expressed language of the provisions and the slight obscurity of the relevant articles, the expert drafting and careful screening by the founding fathers notwithstanding.

2. One Shri Bidap, the respondent in this appeal, was appointed Member of the States Public Service Commission by the Governor of Mysore on March 20, 1967. While his term was still running, the Governor was pleased to appoint him Chairman of the Commission with effect from February 15, 1969. The State took the view that the six-years assured to him by Article 316 (2) commenced to run from the date he became Member simpliciter and did not receive a fresh start from the later date when he assumed office as Chairman. Government s view on the issue was revealed in answer to an interpellation in the Legislative Council made on March 17, 1973. On this reckoning the Chairman s term would have ended on the 19th and so, the panicked respondent hastened to the High Court to avert the peril of premature ouster and sought an appropriate writ interdicting Government s move. The timely interim order and the eventual allowance of the writ petition balked the hope of Government and drove the State to this Court in quest of a final pronouncement on the constitutional question involved. While there is divergence of judicial opinion at the High Court level, the preponderance of authority, including a ruling of the Mysore High Court itself, militates against the appellant s stand-point. A broad consensus of administrative practice evolved by the Union Government in response to an opinion tendered by the Attorney-General on a reference made to him at the instance of the Conference of All: India Chairmen of Public Service Commissions (prompted by divergent views expressed in a full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court) also goes against the appellant s position. Technically, neither the appellant nor, for that matter, any citizen is bound by administrative verdicts on questions of law and when the High Courts disagree, the law becomes uncertain necessitating resolution of the conflict by the SC. It is apt to remember the words of Rich, J -

"One of the tasks of this Court is to preserve uniformity of determination. It may be that in performing the task the Court does not achieve the uniformity that was desirable and what uniformity is achieved may be uniformity of error. However in that event it is at least uniformity". Waghorn v. Waghorn, (1942) 65 Comm W. L. R. 289. at p. 293.

Moreover, in a Government of laws like ours, the last court has the last word on a given law, it being permissible to the Legislature, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the law, if necessary. The question in the present case being one of general public importance has to be decided by this Court silencing the present and potential disputes and laying down a binding rule for the whole country.

3. Counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that there is high policy animating the provisions which limit the official life of a Member of the Public Service Commission to a significantly short term of six-years coupled with an almost blanket ban on the holding of other office or taking up of other employment under Government on ceasing to be a Member. Before we focus on the fasciculus of Articles 316 to 319 to assess the force of this and other submissions, two basic questions fall to be considered. Is there any public policy of great moment behind these Articles and if so, what is it? Secondly, assuming its existence and importance, could this C