JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

Petitioners are said to be the Secretaries of ‘Rastra Raksha Manch’ an Association formed under 19(1)(c) of the Constitution and are Advocates by profession. They have filed the present writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ in the nature of quo-warranto against the respondent Nos. 1 to 75 functioning as State Minister either in the Union Government or in the State of Uttar Pradesh inter alia on the ground that the Constitution does not provide for appointment of State Ministers and the third Schedule of the Constitution does not provide any separate form for the oath of office and secrecy of the State Ministers. The main reliefs sought for by the petitioners are reproduced hereunder :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondents 1 to 60 to show cause as to how they are functioning as State Ministers in Union or in the State of U.P.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the orders of appointment of respondents 1 to 60 after summoning their orders of appointment from them.

2. At the very out set, we would like to mention that the petitioners have earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 3549 (MB) of 2004; Nirdesh Kumar Dixit and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterji (now Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Sharma. In the aforesaid writ petition, which was also in the nature of Public Interest Litigation the reliefs sought for were almost identical as prayed for in the present writ petition. The reliefs sought for in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3549 (MB) of 2004 are being reproduced herein under :

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing thereby all orders issued by respondent No. 1 and awarding the status of Ministers or non ministers after summoning the same from respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the categorization of Ministers into Cabinet Minister and State Ministers and by means of a writ in the nature of mandamus, direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to treat all the Ministers equal and to permit all of them to participate in the meetings of the Council of Ministers being chaired by Prime Minister or Chief Minister.

3. The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3549 (MB) of 2004 was dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and being defective.

4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Government of India has created new constitutional office like Deputy or State Minister, which is not provided in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution provides for the appointment of Minister not the State Minister (Independent Charge), State Minister or Deputy Minister. Further the third Schedule of the Constitution provides for the oath of office and secrecy of the Ministers. It does not provide any form of oath and secrecy for the State Minister (Independent Charge) or State Ministers either in the State or in the Union and, as such, the appointment of the respondent Nos. 1 to 75 are void ab-initio.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Constitution of various countries, namely, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa where the Constitution permits for appointment of State Ministers or Deputy Ministers and their duty is to assist the Cabinet Ministers in the performance of their duties whereas there is no such provision in the Indian Constitution. The State Ministers in our country, according to the petitioners, do not participate in the aid and advice process for which a Minister is appointed. Therefore, the oath of office and secrecy as State Minister is illegal.

6. Inviting our attention to Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution which deals with the creation of Council of Minister