Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose in a service matter concerning promotion assessment in Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). U.D. Dwivedi, an employee working as Scientist 'B' in DRDO, challenged the assessment for promotion to Scientist 'C' conducted by the Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the assessment. Facts: Dwivedi was employed in DRDO since 1974 and worked as Scientist 'B' from 1 July 1983. The Assessment Board at RAC assessed him on 1 February 1989 for the service period July 1983 to June 1988 for promotion to Scientist 'C'. He was not declared successful. Dwivedi approached the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, contending that the assessment was unconstitutional because the entire assessment was conducted under the chairmanship of Professor S. Sampath, a former member of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Article 319(c) of the Constitution prohibits a former UPSC member from holding any employment under Union or State Government except specified chairmanships. The Tribunal upheld his contention and declared the assessment null and void. Union of India appealed. Legal Issues: The core question was whether Professor Sampath's engagement as Chairman of the Assessment Board at RAC on contract basis constituted 'any other employment' under the Government of India within the meaning of Article 319(c), and whether the assessment conducted under his chairmanship was void. Arguments: The appellants argued that prior to GSR-512 dated 1 June 1985, promotion and recruitment to scientific and technical posts under DRDO were under UPSC purview; after exclusion, RAC was constituted with an Assessment Board consisting of a Chairman nominated by Government, two departmental officers, and two outside experts. They contended that Professor Sampath was not in employment of Central Government but a full-time non-official consultant on contract basis to advise DRDO. They also raised the point that statutory remedies had not been exhausted. The respondent maintained that the assessment was unconstitutional because it was conducted under a person barred by Article 319(c). Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court examined Article 319 and held that Clause (c) clearly prohibits a former UPSC member from holding any employment under Government of India or State, except as Chairman of UPSC or State PSC. It found no dispute that Professor Sampath was a former UPSC member. The Court held that whether the employment was under a contract or otherwise was immaterial; the constitutional mandate could not be evaded by giving a contract instead of a letter of employment. 'Any other employment' includes employment by contract. Thus, Professor Sampath's role as Chairman of Assessment Board at RAC was barred, and the entire assessment process was bad in law. Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The connected Civil Appeal No. 15345 of 1996 was also dismissed in view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15344 of 1996.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Service Commission - Article 319(c), Constitution of India - Former UPSC member prohibited from any employment under Government of India or State except Chairmanship of UPSC/State PSC; employment by contract included; assessment under barred chairmanship null and void - Central Administrative Tribunal rightly struck down assessment; Supreme Court dismissed appeal - Held that employment by contract falls under 'any other employment' and constitutional mandate cannot be evaded by giving contract instead of letter of employment (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether engagement of a former Union Public Service Commission member as Chairman of Assessment Board at Recruitment and Assessment Centre under DRDO on contract basis amounts to 'any other employment' under Article 319(c) of Constitution of India; whether promotion assessment conducted under such chairmanship is null and void.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; order of Central Administrative Tribunal affirmed; no order as to costs. Connected Civil Appeal No. 15345 of 1996 also dismissed in view of judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15344 of 1996.
Law Points
- Article 319(c) of Constitution of India bars former UPSC member from any employment under Government of India or State except specified chairmanships
- employment by contract falls within 'any other employment'
- constitutional mandate cannot be evaded by contractual arrangement
- assessment conducted under such barred chairmanship is null and void.
