1. Member of State Public Service Commission — Dispute over withdrawal of administrative facilities and staff — Petition for retrieval of amenities and punitive action against Chairman. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Bihar Public Service Commission and another, Appellants
Versus
Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4878-82 of 1994 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 12593-97 of 1992) With Transferred case (Civil) NO. 2 of 1993,
D/22-7-1994.
WITH
Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur, Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar and others,Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. L.R. Singh, Advocate, for Appellants, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. B.B. Singh and Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocates, for the Appearing Parties.
Important Points
The Court ruled that the Chairman of a Public Service Commission has administrative authority to withdraw facilities from members without violating Article 318. It also held that High Courts cannot use Article 226 to interfere with the internal administration of a constitutional body or treat members as administratively equal.
Subject
Constitutional Law - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, Articles 316, 318 and 226 - Public Service Commission - Rights of Members. No member of a Public Service Commission can be allowed to question the ralidity or correctness of the functions per formed or duties discharged by the public service Commission as a body, while he was its member even though he might have been dissenting member or a member in a minority or a member who had abstained from taking part in such function performed or duty discharged. (Para 28)
Constitution of India, Art.318, proviso - Public Service Commission - Chairman and member of Public Service commission - under the scheme of the provisions in the Constitution and the scheme of the Regulations Chairman of a Public Service Commission has an exclusive role to play in discharge of administrative duties of his office as a chairman - As the chief justice of a High Court is made the repository of duties to be performed in respect of administration of a High Court under the Constitution, the Chairman of a Public Service Commission is made the repository of duties to be performed in respect of administration of the Public Service Commission Chairman of a Public Service Commission is entrusted with the discharge of administrative duties of the Public Service Commission obviously for the reason that as high constitutional functionary he could be depended upon to discharge such functions justly and fairly so far as the member of the Public Service Commission is concerned, he can undoubtedly make a grievance their of when any condition of his service is varied to his disadvantage but, When certain facilities or amenities are provided by the Chairman to a Member of the Public Service Commission after his appointment, while carrying out the administration of the Commission nothing could come in the way of such Chairman of the Public Service Commission, to withdraw any of such facilities or amenities given to a member if the administrative exigencies so demand withdrawal of such facilities or amenities can not amount, variation of service conditions of a member of the Public Service Commission envisaged under the proviso to Art.31. (Para 32)
Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 316 - Petition against Public Service Commission - Interim orders by High Court making Functioning of P.S.C. a constitutional institution, mockery in eyes of general public and exposing its constitutional functionaries to redicule - are liable to be set aside. (Para 38)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
B.B.Singh, Gopal Singh, L.R.SINGH, S.B.Upadhyay, S.K.BHATTACHARJEE
B.B.Singh, Gopal Singh, L.R.SINGH, S.B.Upadhyay, S.K.BHATTACHARJEE
Table of Contents
2. Entitlement to facilities equal to Chairman — Prohibition against varying service conditions to disadvantage under Article 318 — Allegations of administrative misconduct by Chairman. (Para 10 , 25 , 32 )
3. Distinction between administrative role of Chairman and members — Administrative facilities differ from service conditions — High Court's interim orders interfered with constitutional functioning. (Para 28 , 32 , 38 )
4. Withdrawal of administrative facilities by Chairman does not constitute variation of service conditions under Article 318; members cannot challenge collective PSC functions while in office. (Para 28 , 32 )
5. Special Leave Petitions allowed — Interim orders set aside — Writ Petition dismissed. (Para 39 )
6. Can a member of a Public Service Commission challenge the collective decisions of the Commission?
No. A member is considered a party to the functions performed by the Commission as a body, regardless of whether they dissented or abstained. Discretionary remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked to question the validity of such collective functions. (Para 28 )
7. Does the withdrawal of administrative facilities by the Chairman of a Public Service Commission violate the protection of service conditions under Article 318?
No. The Chairman, as the administrative head, may withdraw facilities or amenities based on administrative exigencies. Such withdrawal does not amount to a variation of service conditions to the member's disadvantage as envisaged under the proviso to Article 318. (Para 32 )
8. Are the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission on equal footing regarding administrative duties?
No. While they may be equal in performing constitutional functions under Articles 320 or 321, the Chairman has an exclusive role in discharging administrative duties, acting as the repository of administration for the Commission. (Para 32 )
9. To what extent can a High Court interfere with the internal administration of a constitutional body via interim orders?
High Courts cannot use Article 226 to make interim orders that interfere with the normal functioning of a constitutional institution or expose its functionaries to ridicule, unless such orders are necessary to maintain status quo or aid final relief. (Para 38 )
Judgment
VENKATACHALA, J. :- S.L.P. (C) Nos. 12593-97 of 1992 are the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission -the BPSC and its Chairman, Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav, who are respondent 4 and respondent 3 respectively in Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No. 1898 of 1992 filed by Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur (Dr. Thakur) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna impugning the interim orders made therein by the High Court on several dates. Transferred Case No. 2 of 1993 is the very Writ Petition. C.W.J.C. No. 1898 of 1992 before the High Court, which has been withdrawn to this Court according to an order made in that regard on 18th November, 1992 in the said S.L.P.S. As the said S.L.P.S. as well as the said Transferred Case were set down together for hearing, we have heard learned counsel on all sides and are proceeding to dispose them of by this common judgment.
2. Since a correct understanding of the factual background of the Special Leave Petitions and the Transferred case, become necessary for their proper disposal, such background calls for a brief mention.
3. Dr. Thakur was appointed as a Member of the BPSC on 4th March, 1991. By a Writ Petition, C.W.J.C. No. 446 of 1992 filed in the Patna High Court by an advocate, issuance of a writ of quo warranto for removal of Dr. Thakur from his membership of the BPSC was sought on the grounds that the infirmity of blindness suffered by him had made him unfit to continue as a Member of BPSC. The High Court, no doubt, dismissed that writ petition by its judgment dated the 16th January, 1992, but observed therein thus: "Om Thakur as long as was not removed from the membership of the BPSC in accordance with law was entitled to and shall be given by the BPSC and its Chairman and officers/employees all the facilities and amenities as enjoyed by any other Member of the BPSC and in such matters there should not be any difference between a Chairman and in ordinary Member like Dr. Thakur, who shall be entitled to enjoy all the facilities enjoyed by the Chairman." That observation of the High Court, it appears, prompted Dr. Thakur to file a Contempt Petition, MJC No, 324 of 1992 before it against the Chairman as also the Secretary of the BPSC, alleging that they had wilfully violated and disobeyed the directions contained in the said observation and the same called for taking contempt action against them.
4. But, when the said contempt petition, was about to be rejected, Dr. Thakur, it also appears, filed an independent writ petition in the same High Court, being C.W.J.C. 1898 of 1992 seeking issuance of direction (1) to the Chairman of the BPSC, the State of Bihar and the Governor of Bihar to restore to him the facilities which, it was said, he had enjoyed till 1st October, 1991 and (ii) to the Government of Bihar and the Governor of Bihar to report to the President of India of the omissions and commissions of the Chairman, while he performed his functions or discharged his duties as the Chairman of the BPSC, so as to make the President to take suitable punitive action against him according to law. In that writ petition he had also sought from the High Court, award of punishment to the Chairman of the BPSC and its Secretary for the alleged wilful disobedience of the directions in the observation of the High Courts earlier judgment in C.W.J.C. 446 of 1992.
5. However, the High Court, which subsequently rejected the contempt petition filed by Dr. Thakur by its order dated 21st May, 1992, did so subject to the observation made therein to the effect that it was dismissing the contempt petition without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in other proceedings.
6. The other proceeding in respect of which the rights and contentions of parties were saved by the High Court as above while dismissing Dr. Thakurs contempt petition is the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1992 of Dr. Thakur in which the High Court subsequently made several successive interim orders. Interim Order dat
