JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This writ application has its origin in a letter dated 3-9-97 written by Shri Chaitanya Prasad Majhi, Ex-Member of the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short ‘the O. P. S. C.’) to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court making a grievance about certain irregularities, commissions and omissions, committed by the Union Public Service Commission for short ‘the U.P.S.C.’) in the Civil Services Examination, 1996. The said letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and office was directed to serve a copy of the petition on learned Senior Standing Counsel (Central) and to send a copy of the same to the U.P.S.C..
2. The basis for the allegations, is said to be a news item published in ‘Pragati Badi’ a local daily dated 11-8-97, after publication of the result, a copy of which is enclosed to the letter in question. The main controversy centered round formation of several Boards for conducting interview, appointment and involvement of Ex-M. L. A. of Rajsthan–Smt, Kanta Katburia as a Member of the U.P.S.C.. It is alleged that she is deeply involved in politics and allowing her to preside over one of the Boards was illegal. It is also alleged that in spite of the fact that vacancies were 739 as intimated by the Central Government, the U.P.S.C. has recommended only 737 candidates.
On 17-2-98, another additional affidavit was filed, by the petitioner reiterating allegations made in the letter as well as making several additional allegations questioning eligibility of Smt. Kanta Kathuria, Ex-M. L. A., Rajasthan as a Member of the U.P.S.C.. It is stated that due to her political background she was not even fit to be a Member of State Public Service Commission much less of a higher body like U.P.S.C.. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Member of the O.P.S.C. and was also involved in politics inasmuch as he was an Union Deputy Minister and a Cabinet Minister of Orissa.
3. On behalf of the U.P.S.C., a detailed counter affidavit has been Bled repudiating the allegations made in different paragraphs of the letter as well as subsequent affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit. It is once again reiterated that the appointment of Ex-M. L. A. and allowing her to preside over the Selection Board is illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner has also made several suggestions for conducting a fool proof selection process by the U.P.S.C.;
4. The matter was heard at length. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri S. K. Mohanty and other learned advocates filed power and appeared on behalf of Shri Majhi. We heard the Advocate for the petitioner as well as Shri A. B. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the U.P.S.C..
Before entering into the arena of controversy, we want to indicate at the threshold that though several personal allegations are levelled against Smt. Kanta Kathuria, Ex-M. L. A. and it has been alleged that she was not otherwise eligible to be appointed as a Member of the U.P.S.C., but she was not made a party to this writ application. Thus, no opportunity has been given to her to meet the allegations levelled.
5. Be that as it may, Article 316 of the Constitution of India stipulates the modalities for appointment and term of office of the Members and Chairman of the Public Service Commission. For the sake of brevity and better appreciation, said Article is quoted below :
“316. Appointment and term of office of membership : (1) The Chairman and other members of a Public Service Commission shall be appointed, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, by the President, and in the case of a State Commission, by the Governor of the State :
Provided that as nearly as may be one-half of the members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointments have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, and in computing the said period of ten years any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which a person has held office under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State shall be included.
(1-A) If the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes vacant or if any such Chairman is by reason of absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office, those duties shall, until some person appointed under clause (1) to the vacant office has entered on the duties thereof or, as the case may be, until the Chairman has resumed his duties, be performed by such one of the other members of the Commission as the President, in the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor of the State in the case of a State Commission, may appoint for the purpose.
(2) A member of a Public Service Commission shall hold office for a term of sis years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains, in the case of the Union Commission, the age of sixty-five years, and in the case of a State Commission or a Joint Commission, the age of sixty-two years whichever is earlier :
Provided that-
(a) a member of a Public Service Commission may by writing under his hand addressed, in the case of the
Union Commission or a Joint Commission, to the President, and in the case of a State Commission, to the Governor of the State, resign his office; of six years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
(b) a member of a Public Service Commission may be removed from bis office in the manner provided in clause (1) or clause (3) of Article 317.
(3) A person who holds office as a member of a Public Service Commission shall, on the expiration of his term of office, be ineligible for reappointment to that office,”
Thus, the eligibility for appointment as a Member of Public Service Commission is left to the discretion of the appointing authority i. e. the ‘President’ subject to the proviso to Article 316. Further, law is well settled that appointment of a Member of the U. P. S. C. cannot be assailed on the ground that he lacks calibre and/or qualification. The post of a Member being a constitutional post, it can be assailed only on the ground that it was made in breach of the rules or it was actuated by extraneous consideration, bias, malice etc.. In that view of the matter, we fail to accept the allegations levelled by the petitioner questioning the eligibility or otherwise of Smt. Kanta Kathuria on the ground that she was an Ex-M.L.A. and had political affiliation
6. Looking at the matter from another angle, even if a member suffers from any infirmity or the selection made can be said to be vitiated particularly on the ground that the Member did not possess integrity, calibre or qualification, such appointment, by no stretch of imagination can vitiate the selection made by the member, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the decisions were taken by influence or extraneous consideration and/or made in breach of the rules. Thus, validity of her appointment could not ipso facto vitiate the selection made by her. The view expressed above is supported by the observations made by tbe Apex Court in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1473 and Ashok
Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and others, A. I. R. 1987 S.C. 454. Further, in absence of the Member, against whom allegations are levelled, we are not inclined to decide the point as the same would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and equity. Even otherwise the term of the Member is only for six years and as it appears by efflux of time Smt. Kanta Kathuria has been ceased to be a Member by now. Thus, the decision on the said point would be purely academical.
7. So far as the allegations of illegality and irregularities committed in course of selection by the Public Service Commission in the Civil Services Examination, 1996 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that more than 3 years have elapsed in the meanwhile and it would not be just and equitable to unsettle the settled position. Even otherwise, the persons who have been selected and employed and are discharging their duties for the last four years are not impleaded in the present writ application. In their absence it would not be just and proper also to decide any of the points raised.
8. The U.P.S.C. is an autonomous body vested with the power and authority of conducting recruitments to the Civil Services. They have a set of rules and procedures which are followed for the last 2 decades. The process of recruitment has to be commenced and completed within a time bound schedule. The allegation of constituting several Boards for conducting the personality test has been strongly repudiated in the counter. It has been specifically averred that all steps are taken to maintain parity in assessment of candidates by the Boards. It is stated that a time tested mechanism has been evolved by the Commission and the Members who have equal powers, are briefed before commencing the assessment process. Periodical verification and scrutiny are also conducted by the Chairman to ensure equalisation of standard of assessment through the mechanism of regular monitoring and exchange of information. It is stated that unanity and consistence is ensured and the process of assessment of candidates does not get vitiated.
9. Be that as it may, the allegations levelled by the petitioner are not supported by any materials and is based more on surmisations and conjectures than on concrete evidence or
facts.
Under the service jurisprudence, a third party has no locus standi to canvas the legality or correctness of any action or inaction, commission or ommission committed in course of the selection process. It is not possible for this Court to enter into complicated questions of facts in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, that too, after lapse of several years and adjudge whether the U.P.S.C. conducted the recruitment of 1996 Civil Services Examination properly or not; in the absence of any specific allegation in respect of specific persons. Just because a petition is termed Public Interest Litigation it does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation wilt not apply. In absence of persons who will be affected by any order passed by this Court and in the absence of specific allegation and/or instances, no effectual adjudication can be made.
10. Public Interest Litigation is an innovation essen-tially, to safeguard and protect the human rights of those people who are unable to protect themselves. With the passage of time, the P.I.L. jurisdiction has been ballooning so as to encompass within its ambit subjects such as probity in public life which involve adjudication of complicated questions of fact, which are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Buchao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 (7) Supreme 264 has, in substance observed that P. I. L. should hot be allowed to degenerate to becoming Public Interest Litigation or private inquisitiveness litigation. While exercising jurisdiction in P.I.L. cases, the Court has not to forsaken its duty and role as a Court of law dispensing justice in accordance with law. No direction can be issued which are in conflict with any legal provisions and/or in violation of principles of natural justice and equity. In other words, the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts.
11. In view of the discussions made above, we feel that the petition has no merit and no relief can be granted under our extraordinary jurisdiction. However, before concluding we feel called upon to direct the U. P. S. C. to conduct the Civil Services Examination in future strictly in consonance with the rules as well as the guidelines provided in the report of the high level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. D. S. Kothari and in the report of the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. Satis Chandra who have submitted their reports in March, 1976 and August, 1989 respectively.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ applica tion stands dismissed. No costs. P.K. Mohanty, J. 13. I agree. 14. Writ application dismissed.