Writ jurisdiction cannot control internal administration of a constitutional body through intrusive interim directions.

Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to intrude into the internal administration of a constitutional institution through intrusive interim directions that go beyond ancillary relief. The Court held that orders affecting the Public Service Commission's meetings, voting arrangements, presiding arrangements, and salaries were unsustainable and set them aside. It also held that a Commission member had no enforceable constitutional right to continue receiving facilities such as a separate chamber and allied amenities, because administrative facilities may be withdrawn when exigencies require and such withdrawal does not by itself alter protected service conditions. The appeals succeeded, the interim orders were annulled, and the writ petition failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, issue interim directions that interfered with the internal functioning and administration of the Public Service Commission. (ii) Whether a member of the Public Service Commission had a legal or constitutional right to insist on continued retention of the facilities earlier provided to him, including a separate chamber and allied amenities.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, issue interim directions that interfered with the internal functioning and administration of the Public Service Commission.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme treats the Public Service Commission as an constitutional institution with distinct administrative functions vested in its Chairman and service conditions protected by the Constitution and regulations. Although writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, it must be exercised on settled judicial principles and cannot be used to take over the administration of a constitutional body or to make its functioning a mockery. Interim directions requiring meetings to decide litigation strategy, directing voting arrangements, appointing a retired Judge to preside over Commission proceedings, and suspending salaries and allowances were not merely ancillary measures and did not aid the final relief sought in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The interim orders were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether a member of the Public Service Commission had a legal or constitutional right to insist on continued retention of the facilities earlier provided to him, including a separate chamber and allied amenities.

Analysis: The constitutional and regulatory framework does not place the Chairman and a member on the same footing for all purposes. The Chairman has a distinct administrative role, and facilities granted to a member as part of administration may be withdrawn if administrative exigencies so require. The proviso protecting service conditions in Article 318 does not prevent withdrawal of such facilities, as that does not amount to an impermissible variation of service conditions. Any claim for compensatory allowance had to be pursued under the relevant regulation.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to the claimed facilities was established, and the prayer for their retrieval was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned interim orders were annulled, and the transferred writ petition failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to control or assume the administration of a constitutional institution through intrusive interim directions, and administrative facilities granted to a member of a Public Service Commission may be withdrawn when their continuance is not protected as a service condition.

---