MRS. P.K. SANDHU versus SHIV RAJ V. PATIL ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 25-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MRS. P.K. SANDHU 
v. 
SHIV RAJ V. PATIL ETC. 
MARCH 25, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recntitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 
1955/Lok Sabha Secretariat (Methods of Recntitment and Eligibility Condi-
C tions for appointment) Amendmelll Order, 1996: 
Rule 4(1)/Rule 1, Schedule-Lok Sabha Secretaiiaf-Appointment of 
Officers from outside Lok Sabha Secretariat to posts of Joint Secretary, 
Additional Secreta1y and Secretary to Speake1; Lok Sabha-In Service Officer 
filing a w1it petition seeking a writ of quo waiwnto against the said of-
D ficers-This Cowt suggesting modification of the Rules-Ame11dme11t Order 
1996 passed providi11g for 75% posts to be filled in by promotio11 and, i11 
abse11ce of an eligible officer posts to be filed in by transfer on deputation 
basis, and 25% by tra11sfer on deputation basis-Eligibility for the post of 
Joi11t Secretary being three years service as Director a11d 17 years total service 
in Group 'A' posts-Held, respective quota is fair and in the best interest of 
E service and cannot be characterised as arbitraiy--Nor is prescription of length 
of se1vice for promotions is an arbitraiy exercise of power violating Article 14 
of the Constitution-Rules would be operative from 9.10.1996, the date when 
they come into f orce-Officcrs on deputation would get legal 1ight to remain 
in se1vice from that date-1710ugh they had been drafted earlier, with a view 
F to humane ambiguities, the Rules have bee11 amended a11d are 11ow stream-
lined-In view of the power of modificatio11 of the 01iginal order being still 
available to the Speaker, the deputation of officers was not without any 
authority of law or in excess of authority-17ie option to Speaker to avail of 
services of an expe1ienced officer as Secretaiy General 011 contract basis either 
appointi11g the inse1vice officer or any other compete11t officer 011 supera11nua-
G lion cannot be assailed as i11valid or arbitrary. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 785 of 
1995 etc. 
H 
Under Article 32 of the constitution of India. 
352 
P.K.SANDHU V. S.R.V.PATIL 
353 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das Nikhilesh Ramachandran and- A 
Srilok N. Rath for the petitioner. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, 
Manoj Wad, Ashish Wad, Abraham N.A., Mrs. J.S. Wad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar 
and Mrs. Kiran Suri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Writ Petition No. 785/95 has been filed by Mrs. P.K. Sandhu, one of 
the in service officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Seeking issued of a writ 
B 
of Quo Wananto against respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to show their functioning C 
in their respective capacities, viz., Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as Additional 
Secretaries, Respondent Ncs. 7 to 9 as Joint Secretaries and Respondent 
No. 10 as Secretary to the Speaker, Lok Sabha. After perusal of the 
relevant, this Court after hearing the counsel at length passed the following 
order on August 2, 1996 : 
D 
"The petitioners, inservice officers in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, 
are questioning: in this writ petition the appointments of respon-
dent Nos. 5 to 9, two Addi. Secretaries and three Joint Secretaries, 
on deputation. Article 98 
of the Constitution provides for 
Secretariat to each House of Parliament and the secretarial staff 
to assist the Hon'ble Speaker and Hon'ble the Chairman of the E 
Rajya Sabha respectively. Under its proviso, common posts in both 
Houses of Parliament is permissible. By operation of Article 98(2) 
the Parliament may by law, regulate the recruitment, and the 
conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff 
of either House of Parliament. Until the provision is made in this F 
behalf by the parliament, clause (3) of the Article provides that 
the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the 
House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of State, as 
the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the 
conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff G 
of the House of the People or the Council of States, and any rules 
so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made 
under the said clause. 
In exercise of the said power under clause (3) of Article 98 the 
President of India after consultation with the Speaker framed rules H 
354 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
called the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.