Case: Ajit Singh Vs. Chief Election Commissioner Of India &amp; Ors

deny appointment to the appellant as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. It must be realised that in reply to the proposal to amend the extant rules the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in Consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, wrote to the Commission on December 5, 1974 as under: "The post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner is borne on the personal staff of the Chief Election Commissioner and appointment thereto is outside the purview of the UPSC vide entry 5 of Schedule to the Union Public Service Commissioner (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958. The appointment of a person thereto may be made by the Chief Election Commissioner at his discretion without the consultation of the Union Public Service Commission. The appointment to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner is also co-terminus with the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner. In view of this position, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms have advised that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner need not be made. The Rules for the post as proposed by the Commissioner have therefore not been notified." After the amendment of the 1974 Rules the Commissioner issued an office order dated February 18, 1980 stating that appointment to the post of Private Secretary shall be made in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner from amongst persons of suitable class or category serving in the Commission or from outside, as he may deem fit. The words in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner were construed by counsel to mean that arbitrary and unfettered power was conferred to the Chief Election Commissioner in the matter of choice of his Private Secretary. The Office order further stated that the appointment of the incumbent to the said post shall be co-terminus with the incumbency in the post of the Chief Election Commissioners. This order shows that after the amendment of the 1974 Rules the matter in regard to the choice of personnel for the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner was left to the sole discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner. 7. It will appear from the above developments that the proposal for the amendment of the relevant recruitment rules was moved way back in July 1970. The advice given by the Law Ministry by their Communication of December 5, 1974 was ultimately accepted by the Commission. By the letter of March 19, 1975, the Law Ministry, however, informed the Commission that the Commissions proposal would be considered at the time of change in the incumbency in the post of the Chief election Commissioner. That was why the process of amendment of the 1974 Rules was delayed until December 1979. The incumbent to the post of Chief Election Commissioner at all material times had, therefore, nothing to do with the proposal to amend the recruitment rules. It was, therefore, impossible to contend that respondent 1s action was mala fide and was actuated with the sole desire to deny promotion to the appellant to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner. 8. Coming to the next limb of attack it must be realised that in a democratic republic like ours the office of the Chief Election Commissioner is of vital importance. Article 324 confers the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Chief Election Commissioner. Free and fair elections are the basic postulates of any democratic order. A duty is cast on the Chief Election Commissioner to ensure free and fair elections. This makes the post of the Chief Election ensure free and fair elections. This makes the post of the Chief Election Commissioner a sensitive one. The Chief Election Commissioner has to deal with several matters which are brought before him by political parties as well as the government. His office is called upon to handle correspondence which require a high degree of secrecy and confidentiality. He would naturally require the services of his Private Secretary for handling such highly secret and confidential files and correspondence. It is, therefore, imperative that the person working as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner must be one in whom implicit faith and confidence can be placed. He must be a man of impeccable character and integrity, besides being competent in secretarial work. Integrity, honestly and competence are the basic hallmarks for the post. In addition, he must be a person in whom the Chief Election Commissioner has absolute trust and faith. It is for this reason that the tenure of the post is made co-terminus with the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner. That is for the obvious reason that a man chosen by the predecessor may not be enjoying the same degree of confidence of his successor. He may like to have his own man of confidence to attend to his secretarial work. It is, therefore, not without reason that the choice of personnel to the post of Private Secretary is left to the Chief Election Commissioner himself. This is nothing new. Similar provision is made for certain other functionaries as can be seen from the Home Departments notification dated September 1, 1958 as amended from time to time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the special needs of the post it was imperative to leave the matter of choice of personnel in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner. We, therefore, do not think that the office order of February 18, 1980 can be struck down. The High Court was, therefore, right in limiting the relief up to December 14, 1979 i.e., till the 1974 Rules became effective. Since consultation with the UPSC was not necessary after the amendment introduced by the 1979 Rules, the Chief Election Commissioner was entitled to choose the man of his confidence as Private Secretary. The Choice of respondent 2 to the post cannot, therefore, be questioned.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]After the amendment of the 1974 Rules the Commissioner issued an office order dated February 18, 1980 stating that appointment to the post of Private Secretary shall be made in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner from amongst persons of suitable class or category serving in the Commission or from outside, as he may deem fit. The words in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner were construed by counsel to mean that arbitrary and unfettered power was conferred to the Chief Election Commissioner in the matter of choice of his Private Secretary. The Office order further stated that the appointment of the incumbent to the said post shall be co-terminus with the incumbency in the post of the Chief Election Commissioners. This order shows that after the amendment of the 1974 Rules the matter in regard to the choice of personnel for the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner was left to the sole discretion of the Chief ElectionIt will appear from the above developments that the proposal for the amendment of the relevant recruitment rules was moved way back in July 1970. The advice given by the Law Ministry by their Communication of December 5, 1974 was ultimately accepted by the Commission. By the letter of March 19, 1975, the Law Ministry, however, informed the Commission that the Commissions proposal would be considered at the time of change in the incumbency in the post of the Chief election Commissioner. That was why the process of amendment of the 1974 Rules was delayed until December 1979. The incumbent to the post of Chief Election Commissioner at all material times had, therefore, nothing to do with the proposal to amend the recruitment rules. It was, therefore, impossible to contend that respondent 1s action was mala fide and was actuated with the sole desire to deny promotion to the appellant to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief ElectionComing to the next limb of attack it must be realised that in a democratic republic like ours the office of the Chief Election Commissioner is of vital importance. Article 324 confers the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Chief Election Commissioner. Free and fair elections are the basic postulates of any democratic order. A duty is cast on the Chief Election Commissioner to ensure free and fair elections. This makes the post of the Chief Election ensure free and fair elections. This makes the post of the Chief Election Commissioner a sensitive one. The Chief Election Commissioner has to deal with several matters which are brought before him by political parties as well as the government. His office is called upon to handle correspondence which require a high degree of secrecy and confidentiality. He would naturally require the services of his Private Secretary for handling such highly secret and confidential files and correspondence. It is, therefore, imperative that the person working as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner must be one in whom implicit faith and confidence can be placed. He must be a man of impeccable character and integrity, besides being competent in secretarial work. Integrity, honestly and competence are the basic hallmarks for the post. In addition, he must be a person in whom the Chief Election Commissioner has absolute trust and faith. It is for this reason that the tenure of the post is made co-terminus with the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner. That is for the obvious reason that a man chosen by the predecessor may not be enjoying the same degree of confidence of his successor. He may like to have his own man of confidence to attend to his secretarial work. It is, therefore, not without reason that the choice of personnel to the post of Private Secretary is left to the Chief Election Commissioner himself. This is nothing new. Similar provision is made for certain other functionaries as can be seen from the Home Departments notification dated September 1, 1958 as amended from time to time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the special needs of the post it was imperative to leave the matter of choice of personnel in the absolute discretion of the Chief Election Commissioner. We, therefore, do not think that the office order of February 18, 1980 can be struck down. The High Court was, therefore, right in limiting the relief up to December 14, 1979 i.e., till the 1974 Rules became effective. Since consultation with the UPSC was not necessary after the amendment introduced by the 1979 Rules, the Chief Election Commissioner was entitled to choose the man of his confidence as Private Secretary. The Choice of respondent 2 to the post cannot, therefore, be questioned