BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. ETC. versus DR. SHIV JATAN THAKUR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 22-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
DR. SHIV JATAN THAKUR AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 22, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Constitution of lndia/Bihar Public Service Commission (Conditions of 
service) Regulation, 1960: 
C 
Articles 226, 316 to 322/Regulations 2, 3, 4 and 17-Bihar Public 
Service Commission-Member-Appointment of-<:onditions of service--
Protection of-Writ petition by member claiming facilities and amenities on 
par with Chairman-Held member not entitled to similar type of facilities and 
amenities which the Chairman has-<:hairman has power to withdraw 
facilities provided by him to the member in order to cany out administration 
D of the Commission-Withdrawal of such facilities cannot be van'ation of 
service condition of the Member. 
Publk Service Commission-Member challenging in writ petition the 
Junctions peiformed by the Commission-High Court granting interim or-
E ders-Held discretionary remedy vested in High Court cannot be allowed to 
be invoked by a Member to question validity of junctions peiformed by 
Commission as a body-Member must be regarded to be a party to such 
functions-Writ jurisdiction of High Court cannot be availed of to make 
interim order inteifering with normal function of the Commission. 
F 
The petitioner in Transferred case No. 2/93 was appointed as a 
member of the Bihar Public Service Commissior (BPSC). A writ petition 
was liled in the High Court seeking his removal from the membership of 
tbe BPSC on the ground that infirmity of blindness suffered by him had 
made him unlit for tbe assignment. The High Court dismissed the writ 
petition, but observed that as long as the petitioner was a member of the 
G BPSC, he should be given all facilities and amenities as enjoyed by any 
other member of the BPSC and in such matters there should not be any 
dilTernce between a Chairman and an ordinary member. Later, the 
petitioner tiled a Contempt Petition against the Chairman and the 
Secretary of the BPSC alleging that they failed to provide him the facilities 
H and amenities as directed by the High Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner 
94 
I 
i 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. DR. S.J.1HAKUR 
95 
also tiled a writ petition (CWJC No. 1898/92) in the High Court with the A 
prayers that (A) he was entitled to have a well furnished separate chamber 
(such chamber having been .provided to him earlier) on par with the 
Chairman as the Chairman was also a member of the BPSC within the 
meening of proviso to clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Article 316 and proviso 
to Article 318 of the Constitution as well as under Regulation 2(d) of the B 
Bihar Public Service Commission (Condition of Service) Regulations, 
1960; (B) in view of the protection to the service conditions of a Member 
of a Public Service Commission under Article 318 of the Constitution, the 
facilities given to him after his appointment could not have been denied to 
him; (C) direction be issued to State Government to report to the Presi· 
dent of India for taking penal action against the Chairman for alleged C 
commission for ommissions; and (D) to pass orders for appropriate 
punishment to respondents No. 3 and 4 for their wilful disobedience of the 
directions passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition in relation 
to prividing facilities to the patitioner. 
The High Court passed in quick succession live interim orders on 
27.8.92, 1.9.92, 7.9.92, 8.9.92 and 16.9.92 respectively : (i) requiring the 
BPSC to hold a meeting to take a decision as to how the litigation initiated 
by the petitioner against the BPSC should be conducted; (ii) granting leave 
D 
to petitioner to join all members of BPSC, including BPSC through its 
Chairman as party-respondents in the writ petition; (iii) directing the E 
Chairman to appear in Court with all relevant records, and ordering issue 
of non-bailable warrants against him if he failed to appear in Court; (iv) 
directing BPSC to take a decision in regard to the stand to be taken by 
BPSC in the writ petition tiled by the petitioner; and (v) appointing a 
retired Jndge of the High Court to preside over the meeting of BPSC .order 
F 
to decide whether affidavits filed by the Chairman in the writ petition conld 
be rega_rded as those filed on behalf of the BPSC as also directing the 
Chairman and the Member of the BPSC not to withdraw their salary, 
pending disposal of the writ petiton. These interim order~ were challenged 
in the appeals by special leav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.