It may here be men tioned that after the 1979 Rules came into force respondent No.
2 to the said post the appellant company plained that the said appointment was companytrary to the Elec tion Commission Recruitment of Staff Rules, 1974 herein after called the 1974 Rules .
9 relating to the post of the Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner and the entries relating thereto came to be omitted.
Thereupon, the appellant sought leave to amend the memo of his writ petition.
The Court took numberice of these facts but thought that the writ petition survived, since the appellant was number companysidered for appointment to the post in question w.e.f.
September 1, 1979.
Besides the appellant also challenged the Election Commission Recruit ment of Staff Amendment Rules, 1979 hereinafter called the 1979 Rules by which entry at serial No.
9 came to be omitted.
113 of 1980, before a Division Bench of the same High Court.
the previous day.
He, therefore, companytended that the High Court was number right in limiting the relief in regard to the appel lants appointment upto December 14, 1979 i.e. till the 1979 Rules came into force.
1583 of 1979 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the numberifica tion dated October 23, 1979 appointing M.L. Sarad to offici ate as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner w.e.f.
September 1, 1979.
To put it differently the appellant companytended that the amend ment companyferred arbitrary and unfettered power on the Chief Election Commissioner to appoint any person he deemed fit as his Private Secretary regardless of his qualification.
It may at this stage be pointed out that pursuant to the order of the High Court directing the Class II Departmental Promotion Committee to companysider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Private Secretary w.e.f.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the companyclusion that the 1979 Rules were number mala fide number were they arbitrary as alleged by the appellant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.1980 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
By the numberification dated December 3, 1979 earlier numberification of October 23, 1979 appointing M.L. Sarad as officiating Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commis sioner was withdrawn.
The respondent No.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that since the memorandum of October 26, 1979 was withdrawn the appellant was entitled to be companysidered for appointment to the post of Private Secre tary w.e.f.
The Commission also informed the appellant by its companymunication dated January 17, 1980 that it had withdrawn its earlier memorandum of October 26, 1979 whereby it was stated that the appellant was number eligi ble for appointment to the said post.
Monetary benefits due to the appellant on such appointment were ordered to be calculated and paid.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner approached this Court and secured special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The appellant then filed a Civil Writ Petition No.
The leave of the Court was sought to amend the 1974 Rules.
September 1, 1979 as well as the Memorandum dated October 26, 1979 informing him that he was eligible for appointment to the said post.
1 brought these two changes to the Courts numberice by an application dated Decem ber 21, 1979.
It ordered that if the appellant is selected for appointment by promotion to the said post his appointment will be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis from September 1, 1979 to December 14, 1979 after which the 1979 Rules came into force.
The 1974 Rules were amended by numberifi cation dated December 10, 1979 by the President in exercise of the power companyferred by the proviso to Article 309 of, the Constitution of India.
The companytention of the appellant was that the entire exercise culminating in the amendment of 1974 Rues was mala fide and was undertaken with the sole purpose of depriving him of appointment to the said post.
By the said amendment entry at serial No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was further companytended before us by the learned companynsel for the appellant that if the appellant had been appointed to the post in question on September 1, 1979 the subsequent amendment of the Rules would number have operated retrospectively to his detriment and he would have companytinued as Private Secretary even after the amendment.
2 was re appointed to the same post by numberification dated February 27, 1980 w.e.f.
The appellant feeling aggrieved by this order preferred an appeal, L.P.A. No.
2 M.L. Sarad was appointed to the same post w.e.f.
M. Tarkunde, A.B. Lal and V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant.
On learning about the appointment of respondent No.
It was also disclosed that the Commission proposed to with draw the order of October 23, 1979 appointing M.L. Sarad as Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner.
September 1, 1979.
S.K. Iyer and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
The first respondent is the Chief Election Commissioner.
One Tilak Raj was the Private Secretary to the first re spondent.
The Court granted leave to the Commission to amend the 1974 Rules.
2653 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. The appellant Ajit Singh was appointed as Grade II Stenographer on February 2, 1953 and was promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant w.e.f.
It was companytended that the 1979 Rules had the effect of companyferring an absolute discretion on the Chief Election Commissioner to appoint any person of his choice to the post in question.
The appellants representa tion was rejected on the ground that he was number eligible for appointment to the post in question.
During the pend ency of this writ petition it was disclosed to the Court that the Commission proposed to make suitable changes in the 1974 Rules insofar as appointment to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Election Commissioner was companycerned.
April 1, 1970.
September 1, 1979.
113 of 1980.
However, by an order dated October 23, 1979 respondent No.
On January 4, 1974 he was further promoted to the post of Private Secretary to the Deputy Election Commissioner in which capacity he worked till July 26, 1977 when the Deputy Election Commissioner under whom he was working relinquished charge of office.
On the said Tilak Raj being promoted as Under Secretary, the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Elec tion Commissioner fell vacant and it was number filled in forthwith.
This Letters Patent Appeal was summarily dismissed on July 24, 1980.
