LexAJIT SINGH versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AJIT SINGH A v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA & ORS. SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 [K. JAGANNATH SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] B Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Rules, 1974- Appointment of Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner- Choice left to Chief Election Commissioner-Whether valid and legal- Consultation with U. P. S. C. not necessary after 1979 amendment to Rules. The appellant was working as Private Secretary to the Depnty Election Commissioner until July 26, 1977 when the Deputy.Election Officer under he whom was working relinquished his charge. c One Tilak Raj who was working as Private Secretary to Chief D Election Commissioner was promoted as Under Secretary. In order to fill the vacancy caused by his promotion, Respondent No. 2 M.L. Sarad, was appointed to the said post w.e.f. September 1, 1979. The appellant made a representation complaining that the said appointment was contrary to the Election Commission (Recruitment of Staff) Rules, which was rejected on the ground that he was not eligible for appoint- E ment to the said post. Thereupon, the appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the notification dated 23. IO. 79 appointing the said M.L. Sarad as Private Secretary. During the pendency of the Writ Petition the Commission under due intimation to the Court amended the 1974 Rules as a result of which entry at serial No. 9 relating to the Post of P.S. to Chief Election Commissioner was omitted. The appellant was F . informed by the Commission that it bad withdrawn the Memo of October 26; 1979 wherein it was stated that the appellant was not eligi- ble for appointment to the post in question. The Court took due notice of .the amendment but held that the Writ Petition survived since the appellant was not considered for appointment to the post w.e.f. 1.9. 79. The appellant contended before the High Court that (i) the entire exercise culminating in the amendment of the Rules was mala fide; (ii) "' that the amendment conferred arbitrary and unfettered power on the G Chief Election Commissioner to appoint any person as his Private Sec- retary; (iii) that in case the appellant had been appoited to the post on 1.9.79, subsequent amendment of the Rules would not have operated H 249 A B c D 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] Supp. I S.C.R. retrospectively to his detriment and he would have continued. The High Court came to the conclusion that the 1979 Rules were not ma/a fide nor were they arbitrary and that since the memo of 26.10. 79 was withdrawn, the appellant was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post in question w.e.f. 1.9.79. Accordingly the High Court directed the class II Departmental Promotion Committee to con- sider the case of the appellant to the post in question w.e.f. I.9.79. It further ordered that if the appellant is selected for appointment to the said post, his appointment will be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis from 1.9. 79 to December 14, 1979 after which 1979 Rules came into operation. Monetary benefits were also directed to be paid to the appellant. The appellant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order prefer- red Letters Patent Appeal which was summarily rejected on 24. 7 .80. The appellant has, therefore, appealed to this Court after obtaining &pecial Leave. ' Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: Article 324 confers the power of superintendence, direc- tion and control of elections in the Chief Election Commissioner. Free and fair elections are the basic postulates. of any democratic system. A E duty is cast on the Chief Election Commissioner to ensure free and fair elections. This makes the post of Chief Election Commissioner a sensi- tive one. The Chief Election Commissioner has to deal with several matters which are brought before him by political parties as well as the Government. His office is called upon to handle correspondence which require a high degree of secrecy and confidentiality. He would naturally F require the services of his Private Secretary for handling such secret and confidential mes and correspondence. Integrity, honesty and com- petence are the basic hallmarks for the said post. In addition, he must be a person in whom the Chief Election Commissioner has absolute trust and faith. It is for this reason that the tenure of the post is made co-terminus with the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner. That G is for the obvious reason that a man
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.