Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Smt. Kanta Devi and Kirpa Ram under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan for a writ, direction or order in connection with the nomination of members to the Municipal Board of Pokaran.

2. Brief facts alleged by the applicants are these :

There is a Municipality in the town of Pokaran governed by the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (No. XXIII of 1951, hereinafter called the Act). The membership of the Board consists of eight elected and two nominated members. The election to the Board took place some-time before January, 1956 and eight persons were duly elected thereto. Thereafter on 28th January, 1956, the Government of Rajasthan made two nominations in exercise of the powers conferred on them by sec. 2 of the Act. These two persons are the two applicants before us. The District Magistrate then issued a notice fixing a date place and time for election of the chairman of the Board. The date was the 7th of March, 1956. Information of this was sent to the applicants also. It may also be mentioned that before this meeting of the 7th of March, 1956, another meeting of the Board was called by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pokaran for taking oath by the members and this was fixed for the 1st of March, 1956. Notice of this was also sent to the two applicants. This meeting of the 1st of March, 1956 was, however, postponed to the 4th of March, 1956. In the meantime another notification was issued by the Government on 24th February, 1956. In this notification two other persons, viz., Smt. Hiradevi and Damaram were notified as having been nominated and the notification dated 28th January, 1956 nominating the two applicants was cancelled. Thereupon the present application was made by the applicants on the 8th of March, 1956. They also got a stay order issued and though the Board has started functioning, neither the first set of nominated members, viz. the applicants nor the second set of members, viz., opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 have taken oath.

3. The case of the applicants is that after the Government had nominated them to the Board on the 28th of January, 1956, it was not open to the Government to cancel that notification and nominate other persons instead. Reliance in this connection is placed on sec. 14 of the Act and it is urged that it is only in the manner provided in that section that the Government can remove any member from the membership of the Board.

4. The application has been opposed by the opposite parties and two main contentions have been raised by them in this connection. In this first place, it is urged that no one can become a member of the Board unless publication is made in the official gazette according to sec. 18 of the Act. In the second place, it is contended that no one can be a member of the Board till he takes the oath of office as required by Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules). The contention, therefore, is that as no publication of the names of the applicants was made in the official gazette and as they had not taken the oath of office upto the date on which the Government cancelled the earlier notification, they were not members of the Board and, therefore, sec. 14 had no application, to the case and it was open to the Government to cancel the earlier notification and nominate some other persons in their place as members of the Board.

5. These are the two contentions which require determination in this case. So far as the first is concerned, it can be shortly disposed of. This Court has held in Chauthmal vs. The State of Rajasthan (l) that publication under sec. 18 of the Act is not a condition precedent to the members holding office. We may say atonce that sec. 18 is a directory provision meant for the information of the public and its language shows that publication in the Rajasthan Gazette is not necessary before the members of the Board can begin to function. The first contention, ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document