Delhi High Court
P.K. Bhandari vs The Hon'Ble Speaker Lok Sabha on 1 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(42)DRJ52
Author: Dalveer Bhandari
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioner has filed a writ of Quo Warranto petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2. He has prayed that respondent No. 2 be restrained from functioning in the Lok Sabha Secretariat in the capacity of the Secretary-General of Lok Sabha. In this petition a show cause notice was not issued by the Court, but according to the rules, an advance copy of the petition has been given to the respondents and in pursuance thereto, the respondents appeared during the preliminary hearings of the petition.
(2) The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:
(3) By the notification dated 12.7.1996 respondent No. 2 Shri A. Gopalan was appointed as the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha by the Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha. The petitioner submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Secretary General in the Lok Sabha, Secretariat is contrary to the mandatory statutory provisions as contemplated under 1995 Rules and is clearly in violation of memorandums dated 18.5.1977 and 17.11.1992 issued by respondent No. 3, the Union of India.
(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 2 who belongs to the Indian Administrative Service, to the post of the Secretary General in the Lok Sabha violates the independent character of the Lok Sabha Secretariat as enshrined in the Article 98 of the Constitution of India. The All India Administrative Service officers continue to be governed by the All India Service Rules even on deputation and are under the control of the Government.
(5) The independent character of the Lok Sabha Secretariat is essential to enable the Lok Sabha to act without fear or favour and to establish the correct procedure and enhance the image of the committees of the Parliament, which play an important role in overseeing the Ministries of Government of India. Therefore, the staff and the officers in the Secretariat have to be totally independent. This is the basic requirement of the sound parliamentary system and a basic structure of the Constitution.
(6) It is also submitted that the Secretary General is a permanent official of the Secretariat of the House and he is chosen and appointed by the Speaker amongst those who had made their mark in the service of Parliament in various capacities in the Secretariat.
(7) It is also incorporated in the petition that the appointment of respondent No. 2 destroyed the legitimate expectations of the officers of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the post of the Secretary General ought to be filled by 100% promotion by selection from the grade of the Joint Secretaries and if there is no Joint Secretary available then from the grade of the Deputy Secretaries as laid down under the R& Cs Order No. 511 dated 12.10.1962 of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Secretary General on deputation from the Indian Administrative Service is clearly violative of the statutory provisions of 1962 order and is illegal, irregular, invalid and without any authority of law.
(8) Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that according to the office memorandum dated 17.11.1992 issued by the Union of India, the age limit prescribed in case of appointment by transfer on deputation (including short term contract) shall not exceed 56 years. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 2 on 12.7.1976 as the Secretary General in Lok Sabha in the rank (on promotion) of Cabinet Secretary on deputation till the date of superannuation, i.e., on 30.11.1995 is contrary to office memorandum dated 17.11.1992 and is irregular and without authority of law.
(9) Mr. Anil Kumar further contended that according to the office memorandum dated 18.5.1977 issued by respondent No. 2 which has laid down the instructions on the grant of extension of service/re-employment to the Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation prescribed that no government servant, who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement, should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service. It is submitted by respondent No. 2 who was holding the post of Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was appointed as Secretary General in the Lok Sabha in the rank and status of the Cabinet Secretary. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 2 from the Secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary General in the Lok Sabha Secretariat in the rank and status of Cabinet Secretary is in violation of provision of para 8 of the letter dated 18.5.1977.
(10) Mr, Kumar also submitted that there is no provision in the recruitment rules for the appointment of the Secretary General in the Lok Sabha Secretariat on contract basis and therefore, the notification dated 12.7.1996 contemplating the appointment of respondent No. 2 on contract basis is illegal, improper, invalid and without authority of law.
(11) Learned counsel for the petitioner Anil Kumar submitted that the powers of the Speaker under Article 98 of the Constitution are not unfettered particularly in the financial matters where approval of the Finance Ministry is imparative. He submitted that according to Article 98, the President after consultation with the Speaker makes rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of the service of persons appointed. The power is vested with the President and not with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
(12) Counsel for the petitioner compared powers of the Speaker with the powers of the Chief Justice of India in the scheme of the Constitution for making rules and regulations for recruitment and appointment of the staff. According to article 146(2) of the Constitution the Chief Justice of India has been given unfettered powers by the Constitution. Article 146(2) which deals with the condition of service of officers and servants of the Supreme Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of India or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice of India to make rules for the purpose. In this regard it is mentioned that the rules made under this clause shall so far as they relate to the salaries, allowances, leave or pension require the approval of the President. Whereas under article 98 the President of India has been given powers to make rules in consultation with the Speaker. The real power vests with the President and not the Speaker.
(13) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the head of judiciary cannot be compared with the Speaker of Lok Sabha in view of the provisions of the Constitution.
(14) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the appointment of respondents 1 and 2 as the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha does not infringe or violate the principle of independence of the Lok Sabha Secretariat in any manner.
(15) Dr. Singhvi also submitted that the legislature is the third organ of the State and according to the scheme of the Constitution, it is totally independent. The rules and regulations issued by the Central Government are not applicable to the Lok Sabha, unless they are adopted by the Lok Sabha for its convenience.
(16) Dr. Singhvi has drawn my attention to the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1955). These Rules came into force w.e.f. 1.10.1955. The 1955 Rules have been framed by the President in consultation with the Speaker of Lok Sabha under Article 98(3) of the Constitution of India. Article 98 of the Constitution reads as under:
98.SECRETARIAT Of Parliament :
(1)Each House of Parliament shall have a separate secretariat staff:
PROVIDED that nothing in this clause shall be construed as preventing the creation of posts common to both Houses of Parliament.
(2)Parliament may by law regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament.
(3)Until provision is made by Parliament under clause (2), the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff 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."
(17) Under the 1955 Rules wide powers and responsibilities have been given to the Speaker with regard to the affairs of the Secretariat, particularly, in matters relating to appointments, promotions, etc. within the Secretariat. Dr. Singhvi submitted that 1955 Rules are in consonance with the well established convention and precedent by which the Presiding Officer of the Legislature, i.e., the Speaker has always been given wide powers for running the affairs of the Secretariat. He has placed reline on Rules 3 to 5. He has particularly placed reliance on Rules 3 to 7 and 9 of the 1955 Rules. He submitted that the scheme of 1955 Rules makes it abundantly clear that the Speaker is the final interpreter and the operator of these rules. Rule 4 of 1955 Rules deals with method of recruitment. Rules '3' to '6' read as under :
3.Strength and composition of the Secretariat :
(1)There shall be in the Secretariat:
A)such number of permanent posts as are specified in the First Schedule; and B)such number of temporary posts of the categories specified in the Second Schedule as the Speaker may by order from time to time sanction: Provided that no order sanctioning the creation of a temporary post in Class I, other than the posts of Under Secretary, Superintendent or Committee Officer, shall be issued by the Speaker except after consultation with the Ministry of Finance.
(2)The Speaker may, from time to time amend the First Schedule by increasing or reducing the number of posts specified therein or by adding thereto any new category of post or posts: PROVIDED that when such amendment relates to a post in Class I or Class Ii, no order sanctioning the amendment shall be made by the Speaker except after consultation with the Ministry of Finance.
4.Method of Recruitment :
(1)Recruitment to a post or class of posts may be made by any one of the following methods, namely:
A)By promotion of a person employed in the Secretariat;
B)by permanent transfer or deputation of a person serving outside the Secretariat in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State;
C)by direct recruitment.
(2)The Speaker may, by order, from time to time :
A)specify the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled;
B)determine the proportion of vacancies to be filled by each method; and C)in case of recruitment by promotion, specify the class of officers who, and the conditions subject to which they, shall be eligible for such promotion.
5.Qualifications for recruitment THE qualifications for recruitment to any post or class of posts shall be such as the Speaker may, from time to time, by general or special order specify.
6.Appointing authority ALL appointments to posts shall be made by the Speaker: PROVIDED that the Speaker may, by general or special order, delegate to the Secretary or any other officer of the Secretariat his power to make appointments to any post or class of posts specified in such order, being posts other than posts in Class I. (18) Dr. Singhvi further submitted that a bare reading of these rules clearly reveal that as far as the recruitment and qualification for recruitment to the post in the Lok Sabha Secretariat is concerned the Speaker is the final authority. He submitted that the Constitution of India envisaged that as far as recruitment and promotions in the Lok Sabha is concerned, the Speaker should be omnipotent. In other words the Speaker is not really governed by any office order of the Government or regulation. He formulates the qualification for recruitment and method of recruitment from time to time for the internal management of the House.
(19) The Speaker derives this authority from the Constitution of India. The 1955 Rules framed by the President in consultation with the Speaker of Lok Sabha under Article 98(3) of the Constitution of India clearly establishes that the Speaker is the final authority for all appointments in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. He may frame some rules or issue instructions or office memorandums from time to time for the general guidance but these rules and regulations can never be for the Speaker.
(20) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the discussion in the Constituent Assembly made it clear that the idea was to crystallise the position regarding supremacy of the Speaker that had obtained at the centre since 1929 and give that position constitutional authority and to provide similar position in the State. It is submitted by Dr. Singhvi that bare reading of the Rules clearly demonstrate that the entire authority has been given to the Speaker in the matters of appointment, disciplinary action, promotion and issuing of orders affecting matters or conditions of service of the staff.
(21) It is submitted on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that according to the well established conventions the orders issued by the Government, the Ministries/Departments of Government of India do not automatically ipso facto or ipso jure, apply to the officers and staff of the Secretariats of the Parliament, unless explicitly adopted. He submitted that after the promulgation of the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1955 this position has been formally accepted by the Government of India.
(22) Dr. Singhvi also submitted that the officers working in the Secretariat are required to discharge their duties under the guidance, direction and control of the Speaker. The independence of the Secretary General is in no way affected by appointing officers on deputation or by direct recruitment, as they all ultimately discharge their duties under the guidance of the Speaker. Moreover, these modes of recruitment have been explicitly provided in the Lok Sabha Secretariat R&CS Rules, 1955.
(23) Dr. Singhvi submitted that the petitioner has relied on the R&CS order dated 12.10.1962 (Annexure B-3) is no longer in operation. He submitted that the said order was superceded by the R&CS order dated 1.2.1974 (Annexure B-4). He submitted that R&CS Order dated 12.10.1962 only dealt with the method of recruitment or promotion to various categories of posts in the Secretariat and amended the schedule appended to R&CS Order No. 40 of 24.2.1956 (Annexure B-5) as amended by R&CS Orders No. 71 of 3.7.1956 (Annexure B-6) and 261 of 11.5.1959 (Annexure B-7). Thus the R&CS Order of 12.10.1962 only amended and substituted the schedule for appointments to various posts contained in R&CS Order Nos. 40 and 71 of 1956. The R&CS Order Nos. 40 and 52 dated 24th February and 23rd March, 1956 respectively as amended from time to time. It is pertinent to mention here that the 1962 order was only an amendment of the R&CS Order Nos 40 and 52 of 1956. Thus the 1962 Order also stood superseded with the passing of R&CS Order No. 335 of 1974. The Order No. 335 of 1974 was superseded in turn by the R&CS order No. 741 of 1989 (Annexure B-9).
(24) He also submitted that it has been the consistent stand of the Lok Sabha Secretariat that the R&CS order No. 511 of 1962 stood superseded in 1974. The appointments made to the posts of the Joint Secretary after 1974 would also show that the 1962 order stood superseded as a number of persons were appointed on deputation to the posts of the Joint Secretaries in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which was not permissible under 1962 Order (Annexure B-10) when it was in operation.
(25) He also submitted that the petitioner cannot rely on the 1962 Order for challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Secretary- General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Further, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, R&CS orders Nos. 903/96 (Annexure B-11) and 905/96 (Annexure B-12) were passed providing for the appointments to the posts of the Joint Secretary and above in the Lok Sabha Secretariat (inter alia pursuant to Supreme Court's direction in W.P. No. 785/95 (Annexure B-13). These orders have superseded all the previous R&CS orders relating to these posts and specifically provide for method of recruitment and qualification for recruitment to the posts of the Joint Secretary and above in the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
(26) He also submitted that the word 'Contract' as mentioned in the R&CS Order 903 of 1996 against the post of Secretary General was not intended to convey a separate mode/method of recruitment. It was always understood to mean appointment by direct recruitment and the terms and conditions of such appointment being regulated by the letter/contract of appointment and did not mean or signify any independent or distinct category or method/mode of recruitment. Thus, there was no violation of the 1955 R&CS Rules in framing of the Order No. 903 of 1996. Nonetheless, to clarify the position, the Speaker passed the order No. 918/97 (Annexure B-14) clearly stating therein that the term contract did not signify an independent method or mode of recruitment but was always understood as appointment by direct recruitment with the terms and conditions of such appointment being regulated by the letter/contract of appointment.
(27) Dr. Singhvi contended that no post in the Lok Sabha Secretariat is a promotional post for any feeder post in the Government of India. The appointment of any Officer from the Central Government to the Lok Sabha Secretariat is either on deputation or by direct recruitment or by transfer. In none of these cases, it can be considered as a promotion to the Lok Sabha Secretariat which is a totally independent and autonomous organ of the State.
(28) Dr. Singhvi also submitted that office memorandums dated 18.5.1977 and 17.11.1992 do not apply to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, because they are mere administrative instructions/circulars issued for purposes of the internal management of the civil servants serving under the Central Government. He also submitted that both these memorandums deal with a field, fully occupied by orders of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha with regard to managing the affairs of the Lok Sabha Secretariat especially matters relating to appointments, promotions, etc. under the R&CS Rules, 1955.
(29) Dr. Singhvi also submitted that the office memorandum relied on by the petitioner relate to appointment of the Central Government employees to the posts within the Central Government when they are on extension of service or when they have crossed the age of 58 years. They do not apply to the Lok Sabha Secretariat or to the appointments made by the Speaker for the posts in the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
(30) Dr. Singhvi further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. The petitioner is in the rank of Deputy Secretary, whereas the post of the Secretary General is equivalent to the rank of Cabinet Secretary. Even as a Deputy Secretary, the petitioner is No. 7 in the seniority list of the Deputy Secretaries in the Lok Sabha and has no right or entitlement to claim any right for the appointment to the post of the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha. Moreover, the post of the Secretary General is a selection post and no officer can claim a vested right for the appointment to the said post.
(31) Learned counsel for the parties referred to the order of the Supreme Court dated 2.8.1996, P.K. Sandhu vs. Shivraj Patil, delivered in writ petition no.785/95. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has recognised that Article 98 of the Constitution provides for the Secretariat to each house of Parliament and the secretarial staff to assist the Hon'ble Speaker and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha respectively. Under its proviso, common posts in both the houses of Parliament is permissible. According to Article 98(2), the Parliament may, by law, regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretariat of either houses of Parliament. In this judgment, it is also incorporated that until the provision is made in this behalf by the Parliament, clause (3) of the said Article provides that the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretariat staff 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 this order, the Supreme Court has also mentioned that in exercise of the said power under clause (3) of Article 98, the President of India after consultation with the Speaker framed rules called the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. Rule 4 provides the method of recruitment. Sub-rule (1) clause (a) provides method by promotion of any person employed in the Secretariat; clause (b) by permanent transfer or deputation of a person serving outside the Secretariat in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State; (c) by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 empowers the Speaker by order to specify the method or methods by which post or class of posts may be filled, determine the proportion of vacancies to be filled by such method and in case of recruitment by promotion, specify the class of officers who, and the conditions subject to which they, shall be eligible for such promotion from time to time. Rule 5 prescribes the qualifications for recruitment.
(32) The Supreme Court also observed in this order that from time to time the Rules were amended with regard to the recruitment and appointment of various officers, to the posts of Secretary and Joint Secretaries which were initially made 100% by promotion and no amendments were made.
(33) In the said order, it is mentioned that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Speaker, of the Lok Sabha sought two months' time to take appropriate steps to amend the Rules.
(34) In pursuance to the undertaking given before the Apex Court, the Lok Sabha Secretariat framed recruitment and condition of service orders on 19.10.96. These orders are called method of recruitment and eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of and above the rank of Joint Secretaries in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. In this order, it is mentioned that this order is in supersession of the previous R & C.S. orders so far as they relate to the post of the Joint Secretary and above. The order of 1962 amended that of 1956. The Order of 1974 superseded the previous orders. The order of 1989 superseded the order of 1974 also. Consequent to the frequent amendments and supersession of the various orders, a need was felt for the removal of inadequacies and lack of clarity in regard to the Recruitment and Conditions of Service stipulations, as far as they relate to the posts of and above the level of Joint Secretaries. In other words, the order dated 19th October, 1996 superseded all the earlier orders.
(35) A schedule was attached along with the said orders regarding the selection of the Secretary General. The method of selection is as follows:
"BY Selection by the Speaker in consultation with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition from amongst those who have made their mark by long years of service in the PARLIAMENT or State Legislatures or the Civil Service, appointment being by any of the methods of recruitment viz., promotion, deputation, contract, as may be considered appropriate on each occasion."
(36) It is clearly mentioned in this order that this order supersedes, all earlier orders so far as they relate to the post of and above the rank of the Joint Secretaries in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. This order also shows how the Secretary General would be appointed. The submission of Dr. Singhvi is that because of this order, all earlier orders have been rendered redundant and now the method of appointment has also been clearly spelt out for the post of Secretary General. It can be either promotion, deputation, or contract, as may be appropriate on each occasion.
(37) Dr. Singhvi submitted that the Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the case of P.K. Sandhu which is reported as P.K. Sandhu Vs Shiv Raj V. Patil, . The clear controversy raised in this case stand finally concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court. The Supreme Court has clearly mentioned in the judgment that power of modification of original order was still available to the Speaker. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "IT is seen that in 1955 Rules, which were framed by the Speaker in consultation with the President by exercising the power under clause (3) of Article 98 of the Constitution of India, Rule 4 contemplates the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled. Since the 1962 Orders are only out come of exercise of the said power, which was further modified by amendment in the Order dated December 1, 1974, the power of modification of the original order was still available to the Speaker and, therefore, the deputation of respondents Nos. 5 to 10 was not without any authority of law or in excess of authority. Therefore, they are not void ab initio for issue a Writ of Quo Warranto. It is not necessary for us to decide the controversy whether the Speaker had power, when services of Respondents 5 to 10 were requisitioned and availed of on transfer basis from the All India Administrative Service for the reason that under the amended Rules, one of the sources of recruitment to the service is transfer. Therefore, the continuance of Respondents 5 to 10 on deputation is in accordance with law and their retention in Lok Sabha Secretariat is valid as they have legal authority to remain in its Services. The further contention that availment of the services of the Secretary General on contract basis is invalid, is without substance. It is settled legal position that an in-service officer, if taken on contract basis during the period of service, renders service on contract basis and on expiry thereof he gets to his substantive post in the parent Department from where he came to be in the services of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. In the interregnum, he cannot be compelled to lose his lien on the substantive post in the parent Department. Even if the services of an incumbent on superannuation is required in the public interest, the same can be availed on contract basis. Equally, if any other competent officer who on attaining superannuation from any other service was required to be taken in due to exigency of the service, it may be open to the Speaker to avail of services of such an experienced officer on contract basis for a specified period. Thus in either event the option available to the Speaker to avail of the services of an experienced officer as Secretary General, cannot be assailed as invalid or arbitrary."
(38) Dr. Singhvi submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petition is liable to be rejected.
(39) Dr. Singhvi placed reliance on a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court, Shri Kihota Hollohon v. Mr. Zachilhu and ors, . This judgment has primarily been cited for the purpose of hammering a point that the orders passed by the Speaker are final and the courts have very limited jurisdiction to entertain the petition against these orders. In this judgment, it is mentioned that the scope of judicial review under Articles 136 and 226 and 227 of the Constitution in respect of an order passed by the Speaker/Chairman under paragraph 6 would be confined to jurisdictional errors only viz., infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity.
(40) He submitted that the order of the Speaker in appointing respondent no.2 as the Secretary General of Lok Sabha by no stretch of imagination can fall in any of these categories. Respondent no.2 is the senior most officer of the Indian Administrative Service after the Cabinet Secretary. He has 36 years of very distinguished service to his credit. He submitted that his appointment has been approved after consultation with the Prime Minister and the leader of opposition. He has placed the correspondence between the Speaker and the Prime Minister dated 5.7.96 and 9.7.96 on record. He has also referred to the announcement of the Speaker in Lok Sabha on 12.7.96 in which the Speaker has said that "I am happy to announce that I have appointed Shri S. Gopalan, Secretary of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha. He is the senior most amongst the serving Secretaries to the Government of India. He has 36 years of diversified and distinguished career. I have pleasure in placing Shri S. Gopalan at your service."
(41) Dr. Singhvi also referred to the Report of the very distinguished committee appointed by the Parliament to advice the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha on the pending matters of scale of pay in respect of Secretary General of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. The Committee took note of Article 98 of the Constitution which specifically guarantees the separate character and independence of the two Houses of the Parliament. The posts in the Secretariats of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are exempt from the purview of the Union Public Service Commission. The Secretariats of the Parliament are completely independent of the Executive in all matters.
(42) Dr. Singhvi has also drawn attention of this court to para 45 of the judgment of the Supreme Court Kihota Hollohon v. Mr. Zachilhu and ors (supra), in which the court has dealt with the high position of the Speaker. The Court mentioned that in the Parliamentary democracy, the office of the Speaker is extremely important. The court observed as under:- The office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in Parliamentary traditions. The evolution of the institution of Parliamentary democracy has as its pivot the institution of the Speaker. 'The Speaker holds a high, important and ceremonial office. All questions of the well being of the House are matters of Speaker's concern'. The Speaker is said to be the very embodiment of propriety and impartiality. He performs wide ranging functions including the performance of important functions of a judicial character.
(43) The Supreme Court has also quoted with approval the opinion of Shri G.V. Mavlankar, the former Speaker of Lok Sabha, as under:-
"MAVALANKAR,who was himself a distinguished occupant of that high office, says: "IN parliamentary democracy, the office of the Speaker is held in very high esteem and respect. There are many reasons for this. Some of them are purely historical and some are inherent in the concept of parliamentary democracy and the powers and duties of the Speaker. Once a person is elected Speaker, he is expected to be above parties, above politics. In other words, he belongs to all the members or belongs to none. He holds the scales of justice evenly irrespective of party or person, though no one expects that he will do absolute justice in all matters; because, as a human being he has his human drawbacks and shortcomings. However, everybody knows that he will intentionally do no injustice or show partiality. "Such a person is naturally held in respect by all."
(44) The Supreme Court has also quoted with approval what the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had to say about the position of a Speaker, which is reproduced below: "THE Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that there should be an honoured position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality."
(45) Erskine May in his cerebrated work on 'Parliamentary Practice', 20th edn. 234, has mentioned as under:
"THE Chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. As a symbol of his authority, he is accompanied by the Royal Mace which is borne before him when entering and leaving the chamber and upon state occasions by the Sergeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, and is placed upon the table when he is in the chair. In debate all speeches are addressed to him and he calls upon Members to speak --a choice which is not open to dispute. When he rises to preserve order or to give a ruling on a doubtful point he must always be heard in silence and no Member may stand when the Speaker is on his feet. Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion. His authority in the chair is fortified by many special powers which are referred to below. Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognised."
"THE all important conventional and ceremonial head of Lok Sabha is the Speaker. Within the walls of the House his authority is supreme. This authority is based on the Speaker's absolute and unvarying impartiality--the main feature of his office. This obligation of impartiality appears in the constitutional provision which ordains that the Speaker is entitled to vote only in the case of equality of votes. Moreover, his impartiality within the House is secured by the fact that he remains above all considerations of party or political career, and to that effect he may also resign from the party to which he belonged."
(46) In most Parliaments of the World, the Secretary General/Clerk of the House is equal in status to the highest permanent heads of the Government Departments or Ministries.
(47) Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also placed reliance on State of Orissa and others v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. and another, 1985 (Supp) S.C.C.280. This judgment has been cited to define the expression 'supersession'. The court observed in para 66 that the word 'supersession' means, "to put a stop to; to render superfluous or unnecessary; to make of no effect; to annul; to take the place of (something set aside or abandoned); to succeed to the place occupied by; to supply the place of a thing". This was cited to strengthen the submission that once that order is superseded, then earlier orders would automatically be rendered superfluous. In other words, the order dated 19.10.96 has rendered all earlier orders pursuant to the appointment of the Joint Secretary and above superfluous.
(48) Dr. Singhvi learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the legislature is a co-equal organ of the State and consequently the speaker of the Lok Sabha is not bound by the rules and regulations of the Government of India.
(49) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the documents placed on the record.
(50) When the various provisions of the Constitution of India are analysed, it becomes abundantly clear that the legislature is the third organ of the State. According to the scheme of the Constitution each organ is independent. The Speaker being the head of the Lok Sabha enjoys a unique position. The Constitution has given unfettered powers to the Speaker for recruitment, appointment, promotions and fixing service conditions of the employees of the Lok Sabha. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the Recruitment Rules and Regulations formulated at one point of time be changed or amended by the Speaker or he is bound by those rules and regulations for all times to come. Article 98 of the Constitution is so worded that the President may after consultation with the Speaker of the House of the People or the Chairman of the Council of the States as the case may be, make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of the persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of the House of People or Council of the States. After the rules which have been made by the President are analysed carefully, then according to Clause 3(2) of 1955 Rules. it is absolutely clear that the Speaker is given complete authority for formulating the rules and regulations of recruitment of the service conditions of the employees of the Lok Sabha. According to Clause '4', of the said rules the Speaker may by his order from time to time specify the method by which a post or a class of posts may be filled. According to clause '5' the qualification for recruitment to any post or class of posts shall be such as the Speaker may specify from time to time by a general or special order. From the clause '6' it is clear that all appointments to the post shall be made by the Speaker. According to the 1955 rules framed under article 98 of the Constitution, It is abundantly clear that the Speaker is really the framer, operator and final interpreter of these rules and consequently he can amend these rules from time to time. The rules, qualification for recruitment and method of recruitment are really meant for the internal management of the House and the Constitution has given full authority to the Speaker to frame and amend them as and when required.
(51) In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Sandhu vs. Shivraj Patil (supra) now there is no scope of any controversy. The Supreme Court has clearly interpreted in the said case that the Speaker has powers to amend earlier orders. In pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court, the Lok Sabha Secretariat framed Recruitment and Conditions of Service on 19.10.1996. By this order all earlier orders issued from time to time were superseded. All recruitments and appointments in the Lok Sabha are to be governed by this order.
(52) Even otherwise also according to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Kihota Hollohon Vs Zachilhu and others (supra). The judicial review is confined to jurisdictional errors only, namely, infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity. By no stretch of imagination, the present case can be brought in any of these categories. As a matter of fact, the impugned appointment of the Secretary General, Lok Sabha is clearly in consonance with the rule and the constitutional mandate. After issuance of the order dated 19.10.1996 all the earlier orders stood superseded. Therefore, no infirmity whatsoever can now be found in the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of Secretary General, Lok Sabha.
(53) In the parliamentary democracy the office of the Speaker is held in highest esteem and respect. In the scheme of the Constitution, the Speaker has been given all the powers to appoint officials for the internal management of the Lok Sabha and those appointments can only be challenged in extremely exceptional cases.
(54) The present writ petition is totally devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with costs.