1994 (7) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses Dr. Thakur's petition, emphasizes judicial discretion

Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. Versus Shiv Jatan Thakur and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Thakur's writ petition, rejecting his claims for facilities and punitive action against the Chairman of the Bihar Public ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of Dr. Thakur to facilities as a member of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).2. Allegations against the Chairman of the BPSC and the request for punitive action.3. Alleged disobedience of High Court directions by the Chairman and Secretary of the BPSC.4. Legitimacy of interim orders issued by the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of Dr. Thakur to Facilities as a Member of the BPSC:Dr. Thakur's writ petition sought the retrieval of facilities he claimed to have enjoyed until October 1, 1991. These included a well-furnished office, services of a reader, and specific personnel. He based his claim on two grounds: the equal status of members and the Chairman under Articles 316 and 318 of the Constitution, and the protection of service conditions under the proviso to Article 318. The Court, however, rejected these contentions, noting that while the Chairman and members share certain functions and duties, the Chairman's role in administrative duties is distinct. The Court emphasized that administrative exigencies could justify the withdrawal of facilities and that such withdrawal did not amount to a variation of service conditions under Article 318.2. Allegations Against the Chairman of the BPSC and the Request for Punitive Action:Dr. Thakur sought directions for the State Government to report the Chairman's alleged misbehavior to the President for punitive action under Articles 317(1) and (2) of the Constitution. However, his counsel did not support this relief during the hearing. The Court observed that a member of the Public Service Commission could not question the validity of the Commission's functions as a body, as the member is considered a party to those functions. Therefore, the relief sought was not considered.3. Alleged Disobedience of High Court Directions by the Chairman and Secretary of the BPSC:Dr. Thakur also sought punishment for the Chairman and Secretary for alleged disobedience of High Court directions. However, his counsel did not support this relief either. The Court noted that a contempt petition filed by Dr. Thakur on the same grounds had already been dismissed by the High Court, precluding further consideration of this relief.4. Legitimacy of Interim Orders Issued by the High Court:The High Court issued several interim orders in Dr. Thakur's writ petition, including requiring the BPSC to hold meetings to decide on litigation, directing the Chairman to appear in Court, and appointing a retired judge to preside over a BPSC meeting. The Supreme Court found these interim orders unwarranted and unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be used to interfere with the normal functioning of the BPSC or to ridicule its constitutional functionaries. The interim orders were seen as overstepping judicial norms and failing to aid in granting the main relief sought in the writ petition.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Thakur's writ petition, rejecting his claims for facilities and punitive action against the Chairman. The interim orders issued by the High Court were set aside as unsustainable. The Court underscored the need for judicial discretion to be exercised within established norms and without undermining constitutional institutions.