Back
1989 Supreme(SC) 489
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.
Ajit Singh, Appellant
Versus
The Chief Election Commissioner of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2653 of 1980
Decided on 26-9-1989.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. B. Lal and Mr. V. N. Ganpule, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. T.S.K. Iyer, Sr. Advocate and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him, for Respondents.
A.B.LAL, A.Subhashini, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER, V.M.TARKUNDE, V.N.GANPULE
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 Article 324 - Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Rules, 1974 – Appointment - Appellant was appointed as Grade II Stenographer and was promoted to post of Senior Personal Assistant - He was further promoted to post of Private Secretary to Deputy Election Commissioner in which capacity he worked, when Deputy Election Commissioner under whom he was working relinquished charge of office - First respondent is the Chief Election Commissioner - One was the Private Secretary to the first respondent - On the said being promoted as Under Secretary, post of Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner fell vacant and it was not filled in forthwith - However, by an order respondent was appointed to same post - On learning about the appointment of respondent No. 2 to said post the appellant complained that said appointment was contrary to Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Rules, 1974 - Appellants representation was rejected on ground that he was not eligible for appointment to the post in question - Appellant then filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging notification appointing to officiate as Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner as well as the Memorandum informing him that he was ineligible for appointment to said post – Held, that is for obvious reason that a man chosen by predecessor may not be enjoying same degree of confidence of his successor - He may like to have his own man of confidence to attend of his secretarial work - It is, not without reason that the choice of personnel to post of Private Secretary is left to Chief Election Commissioner himself - This is nothing new. Similar provision is made for certain other functionaries as can be seen from Home Departments Notification as amended from time to time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the special needs of the post it was imperative to leave the matter of choice of personnel in absolute discretion of Chief Election Commissioner – Court therefore, do not think that office order can be struck down - High Court was right in limiting the relief Le. tiff 1974 Rules became effective - Since consultation with U.P.S.C. was not necessary after the amendment introduced by the 1979 Rules, Chief Election Commissioner was entitled to choose the man of his confidence as Private Secretary - Choice of respondent to post cannot be questioned - In view of above, court do not see any merit in the contentions urged before us by learned Counsel for the appellant – Court dismiss this appeal but in facts and circumstances of the case - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AHMADI, J. : — The appellant Ajit Singh was appointed as Grade II Stenographer on February 2, 1953 and was promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant w.e.f. April 1, 1970. On January 4, 1974 he was further promoted to the post of Private Secretary to the Deputy Election Commissioner in which capacity he worked till July 26, 1977 when the Deputy Election Commissioner under whom he was working relinquished charge of office.
2. The first respondent is the Chief Election Commissioner. One Tilak Raj was the Private Secretary to the first respondent. On the said Tilak Raj being promoted as Under Secretary, the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner fell vacant and it was not filled in forthwith. However, by an order dated October 23, 1979 respondent No. 2 M. L Sarad was appointed to the same post w.e.f. September 1, 1979. On learning about the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the said post the appellant complained that the said appointment was contrary to the Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the 1974 Rules). The appellants representation was rejected on the ground that he was not eligible for appointment to the post in question.
3. The appellant then filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1583 of 1979 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the notification dated October 23, 1979 appointing M. L Sarad to officiate as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner w.e.f. September 1, 1979 as well as the Memorandum dated October 26, 1979 informing him that he was ineligible for appointment to the said post. During the pendency of this writ petition it was disclosed to the Court that the Commission proposed to make suitable changes in the 1974 Rules insofar as appointment to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner was concerned. The leave of the Court was sought to amend the 1974 Rules. It was also disclosed that the Commission proposed to withdraw the order of October 23, 1979 appointing M. L Sarad as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. The Court granted leave to the commission to amend the 1974, Rules. By the Notification dated Dec. 3, 1979 earlier notification of October 23, 1979 appointing M. L. Sarad as officiating Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner was withdrawn. The 1974 Rules were amended by notification dated December 10, 1979 by the President in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By the said amendment entry at serial No. 9 relating to the post of the Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner and the entries relating thereto came to be omitted. The respondent No. 1 brought these two changes to the Courts notice by an application dated Dec. 21, 1979. Thereupon, the appellant sought leave to amend the memo of his writ petition. The Commission also informed the appellant by its communication dated January 17, 1980 that it had withdrawn its earlier memorandum of October 26, 1979 whereby it was stated that the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the said post. The. Court took notice of these facts but thought that the writ petition survived, since the appellant was not considered for appointment to the post in question w.e.f. September 1, 1979. Besides the appellant also challenged the Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Amendment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called the 1979 Rules) by which entry at serial No. 9 came to be omitted. The contention of the appellant was that the entire exercise culminating in the amendment of 1974 Rules was mala fide and was undertaken with the sole purpose of depriving him of appointment to the said post. It may here be mentioned that after the 1979 Rules came into force respondent No. 2 was re-appointed to the same post by notification dated Feb. 27, 1980 w. e. f. the previous day. It was contended that the 1979 Rules had the effect of conferring an absolute discretion on the Chief Elect
