Arun Kumar, CJ.-This batch of appeals and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3879/2001 raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The only additional point raised in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3839/2001 is that it challenges vires of Section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3, Sub-rule

(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “No Confidence Motion Rules”) on the ground that these are violative of Articles 14 and 243-R of the Constitution of India. Though, several legal issues have been raised in these cases, the foremost point is, as to whether nominated members of a Municipal Board, who have been meetings of the Board, should be counted in total no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board.

.2. As per facts on record, no confidence motions in these various cases could be taken to have been passed by two third majority of the members if the nominated members are not counted for the purpose of total number of members of the Municipal Board. However, if the nominated members are included in the total number of members of the Board, no confidence motion in each case would stand defeated on account of not having been passed by two-third majority as required under the relevant Rules.

.3. Besides the above legal issue, there are other legal issues in these cases which are as under:

.(a) Section 61 of the Act requires that every member has to make and subscribe oath of office before entering upon his duties as such.

.(b) The oath of office is to be made and subscribe before the Collector or his nominee.

.(c) The oath of office has to be in a prescribed form.

.(d) Failure to make and subscribe the oath within three months from the date of first meeting of the Board entails automatic vacation of his seat by the member concerned.

4. Thereis an additional point Involved only in DB Special Appeals (W) Nos. 892/ 2001 and 899/2001. It is regarding suspension of an elected member just before the date of voting, thereby denying a right to vote to that member who happened to be one of the movers of the no confidence motion. The suspension order has been challenged on the ground of mala fides and it is also argued that if a suspended member is not allowed to vote, he should also not be included in the total number of members while determining whether the motion is carried.

5. It has been argued that the above requirements of Section 61 have not been complied with in these cases as the nominated members failed to take oath before nominee of Collector in the prescribed form within three months of the first meeting. As such they could not be counted as members of the Board and therefore, could not be included in the total number of members of the Municipal Board while considering whether no confidence motion stood carried.

6. Taking the facts of Special Appeals No. 892/2001, and 899/2001 for the purpose of appreciating controversy in these cases, it is to be noted that elections to the Municipal Board of Bhinmal, district Jalpre, took place in November, 1999. Guman Mal Parmar was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board. Two persons, namely, Vakta Ram and Raghu Nath Ram were nominated as members of the Board on 16-11-2000. The first meeting of the Board after nomination of the above two members took place on 19-12-2000. Vakta Ram took oath of office on 5th March, 2001, while Raghu Nath Ram took oath of office on 16-4-2001. By a notification dated, 15th January 2001, the State Government prescribed a form of oath. The membership of these two nominated members is challenged on the ground that they did not take oath of office Municipal Board as a result whereof , they are deemed to have vacated their seat in view of it is argued that they neither took the oath in the prescribed form nor they