UNION OF INDIA versus U.D. DWIVEDI ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 03-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
U.D. DWIVEDI ETC. 
DECEMBER 3, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950-Ait 319(c)-Scope of-F01mer member of 
.u.P.S.C.-Appointme11t i11 other employmellt 011 co/lfract basis-Held, bar on 
a11y other employme11t will include eve11 an appoi11tment by contract. 
The respondent, a scientist in Defence Research and Development 
Organisation [DRDO] was assessed for promotion, by Recruitment and 
Assessment Centre [RAC] under chairmanship of 'S' who was former 
member of U.P.S.C. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent challenged the assessment before Administrative D 
Tribunal on ground that RAC was set up in unconstitutional manner, 
becanse former member of U.P.S.C. was prohibited from taking up any 
employment under UOI and State Govt. as per Art. 319[c] of the Constitu-
tion. The Tribunal held the assessment as null and void upholding the 
contention of the respondent. 
In appeal to this Court, the petitioner contended that 'S' was not in 
employment of Central Govt. but was employed as consultant on contract 
basis. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 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. That is the constitutional mandate. The 
constitutional mandate cannot be evaded by giving 'S' a contract and not 
E 
F 
a letter of employment. Therefore, apart from the post of Chairma)\ of G 
Union Public Service Commission or Chairman of the State Public Service 
Commission, he was ineligible for employment in any other capacity under 
the Government of India or a State Government. (502-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15344 of 
~~ 
H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.91 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2738 of 1990. 
N.N. Goswamy, S.N. Terdol and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for Mrs. Sushma 
Suri for the Appellants. 
B 
N.S. Bisht and Umesh Misra (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of t~e Court was delivered by : 
I 
SEN, J. Leave granted: 
C 
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 
D Board at Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC), Timarpur, on 1.2.89 
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 
E assessment. 
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 
F 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 Constitu-
tion of India. The Tribunal upheld the contention of Dwivedi and held that 
G the Assessment made under the Chairmanship of Professor Sampath was 
null and void. Union of India h~s come up in appeal against the order of 
the Tribunal. 
The ground taken by the Director General, Research and Develop-
ment Organisation, Ministry of Defence, is that prior to the issue of 
H GSR-512 dated 1.6.85, promotion and recruitment to scientific and techni-
U.0.1. v. U.D. DWIVEDI [SEN, J.] 
501 
cal posts under DRDO were under the purview of UPSC and oil the A 
assessment boards for promotion of scientists prior to the issue of lhe 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 B 
Assessment Board constituted to assess candidates for recruitment to 
scientific and t

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