JUDGMENT :

Filing of frivolous petition has been on ascend. To gain cheap publicity, frivolous petitions in the name of public interest are being filed without proper search and without proper examination of law and legal position. Present case is a classic example of a frivolous petition.

2. The petitioner, who is an advocate, has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and be further pleased to declared the appointment of Diya Kumari and Shri Prem Chand Bairwa as Deputy Chief Ministers of State of Rajasthan as the post of Deputy Chief Minister is unconstitutional and invalid.

Any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner".

3. In the body of the petition, the substance of pleadings is that since there is no office of Deputy Chief Minister described in the Constitution, the oath taken by Respondent No. 5 & 6 as Deputy Chief Minister is wholly unconstitutional.

4. During the course of argument, petitioner-in-person referring to additional documents filed subsequently would argue that on 30.12.2023, Cabinet Minister and State Minister (independent charge) were reported having taken oath which does not contain the name of the Respondent No. 5 & 6, therefore, it is argued, it has to be inferred that they had not taken any oath.

5. It is also submitted that under another notice dated 05.01.2024, the division of business was notified, wherein, again Respondent No. 5 & 6 have been allotted business of various departments of Government and again they have only been described as Deputy Chief Minister.

6. It is the submission of the petitioner that the Constitution does not recognize any office as the Deputy Chief Minister and, therefore, taking an oath as Deputy Chief Minister is constitutionally impermissible and for that reason, Respondent No. 5 & 6 are illegal usurps of the office of Minister. They can neither be allotted any work, nor any other facility can be provided to them.

7. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General of India, on advance copy, appeared before this Court on behalf of Respondent No.3 and assisted this Court by placing certain decisions for consideration to submit that the petition is raising an issue which is no longer res integra and stands settled in catena of decisions.

8. The basis of the relief sought in the writ petition is that as there is no office declared as the Deputy Chief Minister, the oath taken by Respondent No. 5 & 6 as Deputy Chief Minister is unconstitutional. From the reading of the petition, we could not find that there is any specific statement of fact made, much less with any responsibility or the source of information that Respondent No. 5 & 6 have not taken oath. During the course of argument, we repeatedly asked the petitioner-in-person whether he has made any such averment in the petition that the Respondent No. 5 & 6 have not taken oath, he could not give any satisfactory answer, much less point out any specific pleading in this regard.

9. During the course of arguments, it was also stated that the Constitution requires oath to be taken in form (V) Schedule III appended to the Constitution of India. We then inquired from the petitioner whether it is his case that the Respondent No. 5 & 6 have not taken oath in the prescribed performa as prescribed in Schedule III of the Constitution. On this aspect, there is neither any pleading nor any satisfactory answer coming forth.

10. All that has been argued before us is that the appointment of Respondent No. 5 & 6 as Deputy Chief Minister is unconstitutional and therefore that bald pleading must be taken as engulfing all averments like Respondent No. 5 & 6 had never taken any oath or that they had not taken any oath as per the provision of the Constitution of India as contained in Schedule III app