JAI SHANKAR PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JAI SHANKAR PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Appointment of respondent no. 6 as seventh non-service member did not violate Article 316(1) proviso, as requirement to have half service members is directory and not mandatory. Blindness of respondent no. 6 does not amount to an infirmity of body disabling him from performing his functions as member; therefore, he is not disqualified either for appointment or for continuation in office.

Parties
Appellant: Jai Shankar Prasad; Respondents: State of Bihar and Ors.; Respondent No. 6: Dr. Shiva Jatan Thakur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Writ Petition in Patna High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Service Commission Composition, Disqualification Due to Physical Infirmity, Interpretation of Article 316(1) Proviso
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Service Commission Composition Disqualification Due to Physical Infirmity Interpretation of Article 316(1) Proviso

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jai Shankar Prasad

Appellant

State of Bihar and Ors.

Respondents

Dr. Shiva Jatan Thakur

Respondent No. 6

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Writ Petition in Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment of seventh non-service member to Bihar State Public Service Commission violates proviso to Article 316(1)
  2. 2 Whether blindness is an infirmity of body that disqualifies appointment or continuation as member of the Commission under Article 317(3)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment of respondent no. 6 as seventh non-service member did not violate Article 316(1) proviso, as requirement to have half service members is directory and not mandatory. Blindness of respondent no. 6 does not amount to an infirmity of body disabling him from performing his functions as member; therefore, he is not disqualified either for appointment or for continuation in office.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant and respondent-State to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively to respondent no. 6