1996 JTR(SC) 2068
1997 AIR(SC) 1313 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1410 ; 1996 11 JT 463 ; 1997 2 LLN 582 ; 1996 8 Scale 668 ; 1997 3 SCC 182 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 770 ; 1996 Supp9 SCR 499 ; 1997 1 SCT 482 ; 1997 2 SLR 465 ; 1997 KHC 760 ; 1996 8 Supreme 737
1996(8) Supreme 737
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and Suhas C. Sen, JJ
Union of India & Anr. -Appellants
versus
U.D. Dwivedi etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15344 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1477 of 1992)
With
Civil Appeal No. 15345 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9793 of 1992)
Decided on 3-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : N.N. Goswamy, Sr. Advocate, (S.N. Terdol, Land Mrs. Anil Katiyar) Advocates for Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : N.S. Bisht and Umesh Misra, Advocate. (N.P)
IMPORTANT POINT
Clause (c) of Article 319 bars "any other employment" which will include even an employment by contract under the Govt. of India or the State Govt.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.319(c), Art.319(3)
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced are Article 319(c) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits a member of the Union Public Service Commission from holding any other employment under the Government of India or a State Government after ceasing to hold office as a member, except as Chairman of the Union or a State Public Service Commission. This case examines the validity of an assessment process where a former UPSC member was appointed as Chairman of the Recruitment and Assessment Centre under the Defence Research & Development Organisation, thereby attracting the prohibition under Article 319(c). The impugned assessment was conducted under the chairmanship of such a person, rendering the entire process legally invalid as it was not constituted in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
(B) The core legal principles are that appointments under Article 319(c) are absolute and do not permit employment by contract; the disqualification is automatic upon ceasing to be a member of UPSC; and an assessment or appointment made in violation of this provision is null and void ab initio.
Facts of the case:
A scientist employed in DRDO was assessed for promotion by a Recruitment and Assessment Centre chaired by a former UPSC member who was not eligible for any other government employment under Article 319(c). The assessment was challenged on the ground of constitutional illegality, and the lower tribunal held in favor of the challenge.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held the assessment process to be bad in law, as the chairperson was ineligible for employment under the Government of India by virtue of Article 319(c), and this ineligibility extends even to contractual employment.
Issues:
Whether the appointment of a former UPSC member as Chairman of the Assessment Board under DRDO was constitutionally valid, and whether the assessment conducted by such a body was legally effective.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since Article 319(c) prohibits any employment under the Government of India or a State Government for a former UPSC member (other than as Chairman or member of UPSC or Chairman of a State Public Service Commission), the employment of such a person as Chairman of the Assessment Board was unconstitutional, rendering the assessment null and void.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the assessment is set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced are Article 319(c) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits a member of the Union Public Service Commission from holding any other employment under the Government of India or a State Government after ceasing to hold office as a member, except as Chairman of the Union or a State Public Service Commission. This case examines the validity of an assessment process where a former UPSC member was appointed as Chairman of the Recruitment and Assessment Centre under the Defence Research & Development Organisation, thereby attracting the prohibition under Article 319(c). The impugned assessment was conducted under the chairmanship of such a person, rendering the entire process legally invalid as it was not constituted in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
(B) The core legal principles are that appointments under Article 319(c) are absolute and do not permit employment by contract; the disqualification is automatic upon ceasing to be a member of UPSC; and an assessment or appointment made in violation of this provision is null and void ab initio.
Facts of the case:
A scientist employed in DRDO was assessed for promotion by a Recruitment and Assessment Centre chaired by a former UPSC member who was not eligible for any other government employment under Article 319(c). The assessment was challenged on the ground of constitutional illegality, and the lower tribunal held in favor of the challenge.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held the assessment process to be bad in law, as the chairperson was ineligible for employment under the Government of India by virtue of Article 319(c), and this ineligibility extends even to contractual employment.
Issues:
Whether the appointment of a former UPSC member as Chairman of the Assessment Board under DRDO was constitutionally valid, and whether the assessment conducted by such a body was legally effective.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since Article 319(c) prohibits any employment under the Government of India or a State Government for a former UPSC member (other than as Chairman or member of UPSC or Chairman of a State Public Service Commission), the employment of such a person as Chairman of the Assessment Board was unconstitutional, rendering the assessment null and void.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the assessment is set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-Leave granted.
2. U.D. Dwivedi was employed in Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) in 1974 and was working as Scientist B in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000, Gazetted Group A DRDS Service at Solid State Physics Laboratory, Timarpur, Delhi with effect from 1st July, 1983. He was working under Dr. A.K. Sreedhar, Director, Solid State Physics Laboratory, Timarpur, Delhi. Dwivedi was assessed by the Assessment Board at Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC), Timarpur, on 1.2.1989 for the service period from July, 1983 to June, 1988 for promotion to the post of Scientist C in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 in DRDS. The assessment is called as Assessment Year 1988. The result of the assessment was declared in May, 1989 and Dwivedi was not declared successful in the assessment.
3. Dwivedi challenged the assessment for the year 1988 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The ground of challenge was that RAC, which conducted the assessment, was set up in an unconstitutional manner because the entire assessment was conducted under the chairmanship of one Professor S. Sampath. Professor Sampath, being a former member of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), was prohibited from taking up any employment under Union of India or State Government as laid down in Article 319(c) of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal upheld the contention of Dwivedi and held that the Assessment made under the Chairmanship of Professor Sampath was null and void. Union of India has come up in appeal against the order of the Tribunal.
4. The ground taken by the Director General, Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, is that prior to the issue of GSR-512 dated 1.6.85, promotion and recruitment to scientific and technical posts under DRDO were under the purview of UPSC and all the assessment boards for promotion of scientists prior to the issue of the said GSR were conducted by the UPSC. Appointment and promotion to these posts were, however, excluded from the purview of UPSC by the said GSR. Therefore, Recruitment & Assessment Centre was constituted at DRDO Headquarter headed by a Director to provide secretarial services to the Assessment Board constituted to assess candidates for recruitment to scientific and technical posts and promotion of Scientists to higher posts. Assessment for promotion of Scientists of DRDS to higher grades was made by an Assessment Board consisting of a Chairman nominated by the Government, two departmental officers of appropriate status nominated as members and two outside experts nominated by the Government. It was contended that Professor Sampath, Chairman of the Recruitment and Assessment Centre under DRDO, was not in the employment of the Central Government and was not holding any employment under the Government. He was a full time non-official consultant on contract basis to advise DRDO on the matters of recruitment and assessment of Scientists and Engineers. He functioned as Chairman of Assessment Board constituted for the purpose of recruitment to scientific and technical posts under DRDO. Promotion of Scientists of DRDS to higher grades on the basis of assessment made by RAC was, therefore, valid. A point was also taken that statutory remedies had not been exhausted before coming to the Tribunal.
5. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a right decision in this matter in holding that the entire process of assessment was bad in law and, therefore, had to be struck down.
Article 319 of the Constitution is as under:
"319. Prohibition as to the holding of offices by members of Commission on ceasing to be such members.-On ceasing to hold office,
(a) the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission shall be ineligible for further employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State;
(b) the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State;
(c) a member other than the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State;
(d) a member other than the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of that or any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State."
6. Clause (c) of Article 319 prohibits holding of any employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State by a person who has been a member of the Union Public Service Commission, except as the Chairman of Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission. There is no dispute that Professor Sampath was a member of the Union Public Service Commission. Therefore, apart from the post of the Chairman of Union Public Service Commission or Chairman of a State Public Service Commission, he was ineligible for employment in any other capacity under the Government of India or a State Government. That is the constitutional mandate. Whether the employment was held under a contract or otherwise is quite immaterial for this purpose. The fact of the matter is that Professor Sampath was employed as the Chairman of the Assessment Board at Recruitment and Assessment Centre. The constitutional mandate cannot be evaded by giving Professor Sampath a contract and not a letter of employment. Clause (c) of Article 319 bars "any other employment" which will include even an employment by contract under the Government of India or the State Government.
7. In this view of the matter, the appeal must fail and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 15345 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9793 of 1992)
Leave granted.
8. In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15344 of 1996 (Arising out S.L.P. (C) No. 1477 of 1992), this appeal is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********
Parallel Citatons of other Journals :
Union of India & Anr. v. U.D. Dwivedi etc., 1996(8) Supreme 737
00041
00042