1979 Supreme(SC) 296

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, N.L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
Hargovind Pant, Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Raghukul Tilak and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Dilip Sinha and K. R. Nambiar, Advocates with him), for Petitioner; Mr. P. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate (for No. 1), Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. General (for Nos. 5 and 6), Dr. S. K. Tewari, Advocate, Mr. S. M. Jain, Advocate and Mr. S. K. Jain Advocate (for No. 1) and Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (M/s. C. M. Mathur, Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates with him) (for Nos. 3 and 4), for Respondents.

Headnote:

University of Rajasthan Act – Section 12 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 319 – Appointment – Petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order of reversion passed against him by 4th respondent in his capacity as Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. – Order of reversion was challenged on several grounds, but they were all negatived by Full Bench and the writ petition was dismissed on a preliminary hearing. – Petitioner has raised same grounds of challenge in this special leave petition, but barring one ground, which calls for a reasoned judgment, court do not think there are any other grounds which require detailed consideration and we reject them in limine. – 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. – Court is, therefore, called upon to consider in this special leave petition whether the appointment of the 1st respondent as Governor of Rajasthan is valid. – 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. – Held, These observations apply equally to the office of a Judge of the SC. – Court is mentioning this merely to bring home, through comparable constitutional functionaries, the validity of the proposition that holders of high constitutional offices exercising State power and drawing salaries from State coffers may nevertheless be not employees or servants or holders of employment under the Government. – Court is, therefore, of the view that the office of Governor of a State is not an employment under the Government of India and it does not, therefore, come within the prohibition of Cl. (d) of Article 319 and on this view, the appointment of the 1st respondent as the Governor of Rajasthan cannot be held to be invalid. – Court may point out that in the course of the arguments there was much discussion about the paramount public policy underlying the need to ban appointment of holders of public offices after retirement to higher offices and posts under the Government. – Court do not wish to expand on this policy or to say more on the merits of this contention, but court think it would be appropriate to sound a note of caution that Ceasers wife must be above suspicion, that purity of public offices of high status is a constitutional value in itself, that nothing should be done which may create an impression that a holder of a public office can look forward to a higher appointment after retirement if he pleases the Government of the day and that no appointments should be made which may lend support to the criticism of favouritism or patronage and consequential weakening of credibility. – Confidence of the community in the key instrumentalities is of considerable significance in the maintenance of the rule of law. – Petition Dismissed