Judgment Arun Kumar, CJ.-This batch of appeals and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3879/2001 raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The only additional point raised in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3839/2001 is that it challenges vires of Section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3, Sub-rule (9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “No Confidence Motion Rules”) on the ground that these are violative of Articles 14 and 243-R of the Constitution of India. Though, several legal issues have been raised in these cases, the foremost point is, as to whether nominated members of a Municipal Board, who have been meetings of the Board, should be counted in total no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board. .2. As per facts on record, no confidence motions in these various cases could be taken to have been passed by two third majority of the members if the nominated members are not counted for the purpose of total number of members of the Municipal Board. However, if the nominated members are included in the total number of members of the Board, no confidence motion in each case would stand defeated on account of not having been passed by two-third majority as required under the relevant Rules. .3. Besides the above legal issue, there are other legal issues in these cases which are as under: .(a) Section 61 of the Act requires that every member has to make and subscribe oath of office before entering upon his duties as such. .(b) The oath of office is to be made and subscribe before the Collector or his nominee. .(c) The oath of office has to be in a prescribed form. .(d) Failure to make and subscribe the oath within three months from the date of first meeting of the Board entails automatic vacation of his seat by the member concerned. 4. Thereis an additional point Involved only in DB Special Appeals (W) Nos. 892/ 2001 and 899/2001. .(c) The oath of office has to be in a prescribed form. .(d) Failure to make and subscribe the oath within three months from the date of first meeting of the Board entails automatic vacation of his seat by the member concerned. 4. Thereis an additional point Involved only in DB Special Appeals (W) Nos. 892/ 2001 and 899/2001. It is regarding suspension of an elected member just before the date of voting, thereby denying a right to vote to that member who happened to be one of the movers of the no confidence motion. The suspension order has been challenged on the ground of mala fides and it is also argued that if a suspended member is not allowed to vote, he should also not be included in the total number of members while determining whether the motion is carried. 5. It has been argued that the above requirements of Section 61 have not been complied with in these cases as the nominated members failed to take oath before nominee of Collector in the prescribed form within three months of the first meeting. As such they could not be counted as members of the Board and therefore, could not be included in the total number of members of the Municipal Board while considering whether no confidence motion stood carried. 6. Taking the facts of Special Appeals No. 892/2001, and 899/2001 for the purpose of appreciating controversy in these cases, it is to be noted that elections to the Municipal Board of Bhinmal, district Jalpre, took place in November, 1999. Guman Mal Parmar was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board. Two persons, namely, Vakta Ram and Raghu Nath Ram were nominated as members of the Board on 16-11-2000. The first meeting of the Board after nomination of the above two members took place on 19-12-2000. Vakta Ram took oath of office on 5th March, 2001, while Raghu Nath Ram took oath of office on 16-4-2001. By a notification dated, 15th January 2001, the State Government prescribed a form of oath. The first meeting of the Board after nomination of the above two members took place on 19-12-2000. Vakta Ram took oath of office on 5th March, 2001, while Raghu Nath Ram took oath of office on 16-4-2001. By a notification dated, 15th January 2001, the State Government prescribed a form of oath. The membership of these two nominated members is challenged on the ground that they did not take oath of office Municipal Board as a result whereof , they are deemed to have vacated their seat in view of it is argued that they neither took the oath in the prescribed form nor they took the oath before the authorised nominee of the Collector. Admittedly, the oath was not administered by the Collector. The oath was administered by the S.D.O. However, according to the appellants, the S.D.O. did not have authority for this purpose at the relevant time. Regarding Raghu Nath Ram, it is also alleged that he was a member of Panchayat Samiti Bhinmal and, therefore, he could not hold office of the member of Municipal Board, Bhinmal, in view of the provisions of Section 64A of the Act which prohibits two offices being held. In addition to this, a further issue was raised that the M. L. A. concerned also did not take oath as member of the Municipal Board, Bhinmal and, therefore, could not be considered as member of the Board while counting total number of members of the Board for the purpose of considering whether no confidence motion against the Chairman was carried or not. 7. On 5th March, 2001 a motion of no confidence duly signed by the requisite number of members was moved against the Chairman, Guman Mal Parmar, Raja Ram, a duly elected member of the Board, was a signatory to the motion of no confidence. The no confidence motion was to be considered in the meeting of the Municipal Board to be held on 31st March, 2001. Two days before the said date i.e. on 29th March 2001, Raja Ram was suspended and was, therefore, not allowed to vote when the motion of no confidence was taken for consideration on 31St March 2001, even though, he made specific prayer in writing for being allowed to vote specially in view of the fact that he was one of the movers of the motion. Raja Ram was not allowed to vote in the meeting which considered the no confidence motion. Seventeen members voted in favour of the motion. The S.D.O., Bhinmal reported that the motion as carried, which resulted in Guman Mal Parmar, Chairman of the Board, vacating his office, Guman Mal Parmar challenged this by way of Writ Petition filed in this Court. The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated, 19-11-2001. This led to the filing of D. B. Civil Special Appeals No. 892/2001 and 899/2001. 8. Following a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raees Ahmed vs. State of U. P., (2000) 1 SCC 432 : ( AIR 2000 SC 583 ) and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Yogesh Chandra Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) DNJ 208, the learned single Judge held that the point as to whether the nominated members who have no right to vote, are to be counted while computing total number of members in the context of no confidence motion being carried or not, was no longer res integra. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Raees Abmed’s case (Supra) that such members are liable to be counted in the total number of members even though, they do not have a right to vote. 9. In Yogesh Chandra Saint’s case (Supra), the question for consideration before the Division Bench was formulated as under “Whether the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Member of Parliament (MP) representing a Council can be treated as full fledged member of the Municipal Council, so as to participate and vote in the proceedings of No Confidence Motion for removing the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council and hence, were required to be given a notice of the meeting for carrying out the Motion of No Confidence.” 9A. On the basis of plain language of the relevant provisions of Section 3(36) of the Act and Rule 3 of the No Confidence Motion Rules while interpreting the words ‘total number’, it was held that every member of the Board, whether brought In by direct election or by co-option or by nomination had a right to take part to the conduct of the business of the Board. Under the rules, every member of the Board was required to be given notice in writing of the date of the meeting convened by the Collector for the purpose of consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairperson. 10. For purposes of deciding the legal issue it is necessary to refer to certain provisions contained in the Statute as well as In the rules Section 9 of the Act lays down composition of Boards. It provides as under:- “9. Composition of Boards.--(1) Subject, to the provisions contained in the succeeding sub-sections, but save as provided in the following provisions of this sub-section, all seats in a municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies known as wards, the number of such seats, not being less than thirteen, being fixed by the State Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette:--(a) the following shall be represented on the board, council or corporation, as the case may be. viz.:-(i) a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly representing a constituency which comprises wholly or partly the area of a municipality; and (ii) three persons or ten per cent of the number of elected members of the municipality, whichever is less, having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, to be nominated by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette: Provided (i) the provisions contained in Section 26 and Section 59 of this Act, shall be applicable to the persons to be nominated or nominated under Sub-clause (ii); .(ii) the State Government shall have power to withdraw a member nominated under Sub-clause (ii) at any time; (iii) the term of co-opted members, if any, who were co-opted and are continuing as such on the datg of commencement of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Second Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 22 of 2000) shall come to an end upon such commencement: Provided further that a member referred to in Sub-clause (ii) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of a board, council or corporation as the case may be: (b) A member of the House of the People representing a constituency which comprises wholly or partly the area of a municipality with a municipal council or as the case may be, a municipal Corporation shall be represented on the Council or Corporation of such municipality: Provided that a member referred to In Sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) shall have a right to vote in the meetings of a Board, Council or Corporation or Corporation referred to in Clause (b) shall have a right to vote in the meetings of a Council or Corporation; I, 11. Thenext relevant provision is contained in Section 61 of the Act which requires the members to take oath of office. The said section is reproduced as under :-- “6 1. Oath of office.--(1) Every member shall, before entering upon his duties as such, make and subscribe before the Collector or his nominee for the purpose an oath or affirmation in the prescribed form. (2) Any member who fails to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) within a period of three months from the date of the first meeting of the board shall be deemed to have vacated his seat.” 12. Section 65 of the Act requires that for every Board there shall be a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. (2) Any member who fails to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) within a period of three months from the date of the first meeting of the board shall be deemed to have vacated his seat.” 12. Section 65 of the Act requires that for every Board there shall be a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. It provides in Sub-section (2) that “the Chairman shall be elected in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in that behalf , by the elected members of the Board from amongst themselves.” 13. Similarly, the Vice-Chairman is to be elected by the elected members of the Board from amongst themselves in accordance with the rules made in this behalf 14. Section 63 of the Act contains provisions regarding removal of members from the Board. Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 61 (regarding oath of office) is one of the grounds for removal. The power to remove a member under Section 63 of the Act is given to the State Government. 15. Section 64-A contains restriction on simultaneous holding of office of a member in a municipality and membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly or a Panchayati Raj Institution. It provides as under : “No person shall remain both the member of a municipality and a member of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly or a Panchayati Raj Institution and if a person who is already a member of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly or a Panchayati Raj Institution is elected as a member of a municipality, then, at the expiration of fourteen days from the date of being elected as such member, he shall cease to be such member unless he has previously resigned his seat in Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly or the Panchayati Raj Institution, as the case may be: Provided that if a person, who is already a member of a municipality, is elected as a member of Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly or a Panchayati Raj Institution, then, at the expiration of fourteen days from the date of being elected as a member of Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly or a Panchayati Raj Institution, as the case may be, he shall cease to be such member unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly or the Panchayati Raj Institution, as the case may be.” .16. This brings we to the relevant rule regarding no confidence motion against a Chairman or Vice-Chairman. This provision is contained in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974. Rule 3 contains the procedure in this behalf , the relevant portions whereof are as under :-- .(1) A written notice of intention to make motion of no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman signed by one-third members of the Board together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made shall be sent to the Collector of the District, who shall thereupon convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the board on notice, and at the time appointed by him, which shall not be earlier than twenty or later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. .(2) to(6) .(7) On the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of four hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the Board and the Collector or his nominee shall neither speak on the merits thereof nor thereon. .(8) If the motion is not carried by a 2/3 majority of the whole number of members, or if any meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, the motion of no confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been lost. .(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of 2/3 number of whole number of the members, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed against the Chairman or Vice-chairman, as the case may be and such Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office.” 17. Theexpression “whole number of members” used in these rules is not defined in the rules, but Sub-section (36) of Section 3 of the parent Act, i.e., Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 contains the definition as under :-- “(36) ‘whole number’ or ‘total number’ when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time.” 18. Finally, Article 243-R of the Constitution of India has an important bearing on the controversy before us and, therefore, the same is reproduced as under:-“Art. 243-R. (1) Save as provided In Clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area and for this purpose each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. .(2) The legislature of a State may, by law, provide,-- .(a) for therepresentation in a Municipality of (i) persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration; .(ii) the members of the House of the People and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the Municipal area; (iii) the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of the State registered as electors within the Municipal area; .(iv) the Chairpersons of the Committee constituted under Clause (5) of Article 243-S: Provided that the persons referred to in paragraph (1) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality; .(b) the manner of election of the Chairperson of a Municipality. 19. In thebackground of the legal provisions, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the nominated members of the Municipal Board should not be counted for purposes of whole number of members while considering whether a no confidence motion against the Chairman is carried or not. It is argued that the nominated members are given representation on the Board for reasons of their having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. They are not elected members. The State Government nominates them on account of their above abilities. Section 9 of the Act specifically provides that the nominated members shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Board. The reason for this appears to be that the nominated members are given an advisory role by virtue of their past knowledge and/or experience. They are not supposed to indulge in party politics which is the domain of the elected members. The nominated members are supposed to be above party politics. They are expected to contribute in improving municipal governance rather than Indulge in politics. They are not supposed to indulge in party politics which is the domain of the elected members. The nominated members are supposed to be above party politics. They are expected to contribute in improving municipal governance rather than Indulge in politics. Therefore, it is contended that when the legislature itself has not given to nominated members a right to vote at the meetings of the Board, why should they be counted at all in the total number of members for purposes of determining whether a motion of no confidence against a Chairman is carried or not? The moment nominated members are included in total number of members the voting pattern gets affected resulting in the statutory bar being rendered redundant. 20. Section 65 of the Act, which deals with election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, specifically provide that the Chairman is to be elected by the elected members of the Board from amongst themselves. The nominated members, therefore, have no say in the election of Chairman of the Board, why should they have a say in removal of the Chairman, specially when they have been denied voting rights. Counting the nominated members for purposes of total number of members has an indirect effect on voting. By inclusion in total number of members the vote of the nominated members will always be a negative vote. To illustrate, if a Board has 24 elected members and 2 nominated members, a no confidence motion would be carried if 16 members vote for it when only elected members are taken as constituting total number of members. If the nominated members are counted