JAI SHANKAR PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 19-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-. 
-
JAi SHANKAR PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 19, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Articles 316(1) & 317(3) (c}-Bihar State Public 
' 
Service Commission composed of eleven members-Appointment of seventh 
non-service member-W/1ether violative of proviso to Article 316(1)-Blind 
acknowledged scholar of English appointed as member of Public Service 
Commission-W/1etlzer unfit to continue in office by reason of infinnity of 
·body. 
Words & phrases: "Expression as nearly as may be one half.~eaning 
A 
B 
c 
in the context of Art. 316(1), Constitution of India. 
D 
The proviso to clause (1) of Article 316 of the Constitution .requires 
that 'as nearly as may be', one-half of the members of the Public Service 
Commission shall be from service category. Clause (2) of the Article 
entitles a member of a Public Service Commission to hold office for a term 
of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office or he attains 
the age of superannauation provided therein whichever is earlier. Sub-
clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 317 provides for removal of a member of 
the Public Service Commission by reason of infirmity of mind or body. 
E 
Respondent No. 6, a blind, acknowledged scholar of English and F 
Associate Professor in the Patna University, was appointed the seventh 
non-service member of the Ribar State Public Service Commission on 4th 
March 1991. "'he total strength of the Public Service Commission was 
eleven. The other four members belonged to the services category. On 11th 
September 1991, respondent No.5, the Chairman of the said Commission, G 
gave a certificate stating that the respondent has been performing his 
du,ies with exceptional excellence without letting his blindness hinder his 
work and strongly recommended conferment of a national award in recog-
nition of his excellence despite his blindness. On 22nd October 1991 the 
State Government addressed a letter to the Union Ministry of Home 
Affairs recommending. hi.n for the prestigious national award of H 
517 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
'Padamshree' for his services as a member of the Public Service Commis-
sion. On 15th March 1992 the President of India conferred on him the 
National Award. 
B 
On 14.th January 1992 the appellant, in a public interest ligigation, 
challenged the appointment of respondent No. 6 as a member of the Bihar 
Public Service Commission. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
In the appeal by special leave it was contended that the appointment 
of the seventh member from the non-service category was violative of the 
proviso to Article 316(1) of the Constitution. It was submitted that the 
C expression 'as nearly as may be one-hair occurring in the said proviso has 
been used to convey that a fraction may be ignored if the total number of 
A. 
members cannot be exactly halved between service and non-service 
~ 
categories. The argument was that if the representation of the service 
members of. the Commission fell short of 50% then all person.s to be 
D appointed on the Commission till the said proportion was made up, had 
to be from the service category, that being their necessary qualification. It 
was further contended that respondent No. 6 was totally blind even from 
a date prior to his appointment and was unlit to be appointed by reason 
of the said physical infirmity; The argument was that the blindness was an 
infirmity of body. and if it was a ground for removal from office under 
E Article 317(3) (c), it was much more a disqualification for appointment 
and hence respondent No. 6 should be prevented from continuing in his 
office. 
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government on 23rd 
p 
January 1993 it was stated that although the proviso to Article 316(1) was 
not mandatory, that by itself was not a good ground for departing from 
the suggestion of the Constitution and hence the appointment of respon-
dent No. 6 as the 7th non-Government member was not justified. It was 
further stated that at the time of the appointment, the aspect about his 
blindness was not specifically considered as the same was stated in the 
G bio-data of respondent No. 6 in very causal way and in such a manner that 
it had escaped the attention of the constitutional authorities at the time of 
recommending respondent No. 6 for appointment. The affidavit further 
stated that while conducting the interviews, members of the Commission 
had to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.