(Delivered by Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.)—This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed challenging the nomination of respondents no. 6 to 14 to U.P. State Legislative Council and for issuing a writ of quo-warranto, calling upon them to show their valid authority to be a member of U.P. State Legislative Council. A writ of certiorari has also been prayed for, for quashing the impugned notification dated 15.5.03, by means of which the aforesaid respondents were nominated as members of the State Legislative Council.2. At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that the term of the aforesaid nominated members has already expired and, therefore, neither writ of certiorari nor writ of quo-warranto can be issued. However, learned counsel for the parties emphasized that the questions raised require consideration as nomination to the State Legislative Council is a matter of great importance, which requires absolute transparency and laying down of objectives, guidelines and criteria for selecting such persons, therefore, the Court may express its view in the matter.3. We, therefore, are dealing with the facts and issues only to the extent they are absolutely necessary for the purpose.4. The term of ten nominated members in the U.P. State Legislative Council expired on 12.5.03. In their place nine members of the Council were nominated, namely, respondents no. 6 to 14 in the present writ petition. The notification issued by the State Government is dated 15.5.03.5. The challenge to their nominations has been made mainly on the following grounds:(i) Nominations have not been made by the Governor in his own discretion in accordance with the provision of Article 171 sub clause 5 but he has been made to nominate the private respondents on political considerations on party lines, they being the nominees of the ruling Bhartiya Janta Party-Bahujan Samaj Party alliance, who, in fact, have been proposed by the Chief Minister not even by the Council of Ministers.(ii) The Governor instead of taking a decision on merits after considering distinguished persons in the indicated fields, simply dittoed the names of respondents no. 4 to 16, as decided by these political parties.(iii) The nomination of respondents no. 4 to 16, as decided by these political parties.(iii) The nomination of respondents no. 6 to 14 is purely arbitrary and subjective and not on merits or any objective criteria;(iv) These respondents cannot be said to be persons having special knowledge or practical experience of their fields and they have been nominated allegedly recognising their service in social work but, as a matter of fact, they are mere politicians and have no special knowledge or practical experience in any field, including social service;(v) It cannot be a coincidence that all the private respondents have been nominated under the criteria of social service, though the details/bio-data given by them, on the face of it, do not establish that they are the persons, who can even be nominated under the criteria of social service.(vi) Nomination of all nine members, allegedly recognising their work in social service is merely a camouflage for inducting members of the ruling political parties’ alliance, in the Council.6. The petitioner has also given an illustrative list of such persons, who could have been considered, namely, persons honoured with Padma Awards, persons given highest awards for Literature by Hindi Sansthan and Sanskrit Sansthan, Scientists who have received highest awards in the last three years only, artists honoured by Sangeet Natak & Lalit Kala Academies by their highest awards and many more.7. It has also been urged that ironically none of the distinguished persons in the fields of Literature, Science and Art were considered to adorn the Upper House and even Padma Awardees for cooperative movement and social service have been overlooked and ignored, which cannot be justified nor it can be the intention of the provision of nomination, as laid down under Article 171 of the Constitution.Sri S.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any specific guidelines or criteria for selecting the persons for nomination to the Council, the authority to nominate is being misused as the State Government has not made any such criteria for the reasons best known to it. His submission is that, to prevent such misuse of party in power, it is necessary that some objective and proper procedure and criteria be laid down, as the Supreme Court directed even in the case of Padma Awards where the Government has wide discretion, unlike the present case.8. His submission is that, to prevent such misuse of party in power, it is necessary that some objective and proper procedure and criteria be laid down, as the Supreme Court directed even in the case of Padma Awards where the Government has wide discretion, unlike the present case.8. Further, an argument has been raised that under Article 173(a) of the Constitution, a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission on oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule in the Constitution. A close scrutiny of the relevant record would indicate that this mandatory requirement was not complied with, before the nomination of respondents no. 6 to 14 to the Council.9. Further, according to Article 191 of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, if he suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Article but no report from the concerned District Magistrates seems to have been obtained in this regard before the nomination of respondents no. 6 to 14. Therefore, in the absence of any enquiry that the concerned persons did not suffer from any disqualification under Article 191, their nomination could not be made and is not sustainable in law.10. The plea that the private respondents were nominated without any enquiry being initiated as required under Article 191 or they have taken oath against the provision of Article 173(a) of the Constitution is of no relevance in view of their term having been expired, but may be that to avoid any disqualified persons from being nominated to the Council, it may be advisable to take a report of the proposed candidates, from the District Magistrate, before consideration of his nomination.11. However, taking of oath under Article 173(a) of the Constitution cannot be said to be a requirement in the case of nomination of a member to the Legislative Council, as such a requirement does not flow either from the provisions of Article 173(a) or from the contents of the prescribed form, as set out in the Third Schedule.12. However, taking of oath under Article 173(a) of the Constitution cannot be said to be a requirement in the case of nomination of a member to the Legislative Council, as such a requirement does not flow either from the provisions of Article 173(a) or from the contents of the prescribed form, as set out in the Third Schedule.12. Arguments have been advanced in great length regarding the nature of power, which the Governor exercises while nominating the members to the Legislative Council, namely, whether he exercises this power at his own discretion or he acts on the aid and advice of council of Ministers and if so, the extent of judicial review permissible under either of the two conditions.13. A further argument has been raised that in the instant case, it is not on the aid and advice of the council of Ministers, that the Governor has nominated the members but, as a matter of fact, it is only the will of the Chief Minister, which has been honoured by the Governor.14. On the basis of the arguments advanced, the points which require consideration can be summarized as under:(i) Whether the Governor, while exercising his authority of nominating the members to the Legislative Council under Article 171 sub-clause (5), exercises his personal discretion or he is to exercise his discretion on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers;(ii) Whether the Chief Minister of his/her own, can make a proposal for nomination of members to the Legislative Council, without consulting the Council of Ministers; and(iii) Whether the nominations can be made of a large number of members (in the instant case nine members), only from one field, as was presently done, where all the members were nominated for their practical experience in social service.15. Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, has rightly submitted that irrespective of the nature of discretion, which is exercised by the Governor in the matter of nomination of members of Legislative Council, power of judicial review can only be extended to see that the members so nominated do not suffer from any disqualification or that they were ineligible to be nominated.16. He further submitted that the scope, limit and extent of judicial review, in the matter of exercise of discretion by the President or the Governor, while discharging their function under the Constitution, has already been extensively dealt with by the Apex Court, in the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2192, which principles will equally be applicable, when the Governor nominates any member to the Legislative Council.In case the members nominated are or were ineligible or suffer from any disqualification for being nominated, then, of course, the Court would have the authority to strike down such nominations and, therefore, it is not necessary to delve in detail on the nature of authority of the Governor in nominating the members i.e. whether such authority is to be exercised under the personal discretion of the Governor or on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.17. Here it may be pertinent to mention that the Governor under Article 163 has to exercise his functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters, with the Chief Minister as the Head, except in so far as he is, by or under the Constitution, required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.18. Thus, the Governor has the power to exercise his discretion as per the provision of Article 163 and can ask for a proposal for nominations to be reconsidered by the Council of Ministers.19. In the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, held that the President as well as the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in executive action and is not required by the Constitution to act personally without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers or against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Where the Governor has any discretion the Governor acts on his own judgment. The Governor exercises his discretion in harmony with his Council of Ministers.20. Where the Governor has any discretion the Governor acts on his own judgment. The Governor exercises his discretion in harmony with his Council of Ministers.20. Hon’ble Krishna Iyer, J, in the same case, observed as under:“We declare the law of this branch of our Constitution to be that the President and Governor, custodians of all executive and other powers under various Articles shall, by virtue of these provisions, exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well-known exceptional situations.”21. The executive power of the State vests in the Governor, which can be exercised by him, either directly or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with the Constitution under Article 154.22. We do agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State Sri J.N. Mathur, that the exercise of discretion by the Governor either of his own or on the aid and advice of the council of Ministers, will be open to judicial review only for assessing, whether the nominations have been made of the persons who are not eligible or they do suffer from any disqualification, and if that be so, the nominations so made, would be liable to be questioned, cancelled and set aside.23. We, therefore, do not intend to enter into this debate about the nature of discretion, which is exercised by the Governor in the matter of nomination of members to Legislative Council, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, but do observe that if the Governor is to exercise his personal discretion in nominating the members, he can do so on his own satisfaction, but assuming that such a discretion by the Governor has to be exercised, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he can still send back the proposal for reconsideration of all or some of the names to the Council of Ministers, with his own suggestions, and even in case, the names are suggested individually by the Chief Minister, the Governor will have his authority to send the matter for consideration by the Council of Ministers.24. Sri S.N. Shukla has drawn the attention of the Court to the recommendations made by the Chief Minister to the Governor and the qualifications/bio-data of the candidates, namely, private respondents, forwarded to him, to emphasize and to urge that in most of the cases, absolutely bald mention has been made regarding the social service of the candidates, with no proof of actual social service or their actual knowledge or practical experience. They are simply the persons, who could not get their entry through elections and, therefore, they have been inducted by the back door entry by the ruling parties’ alliance under the guise of social service.25. Article 171 of the Constitution which deals with the composition of the Legislative Councils, under sub-clause (e) prescribes for nomination of members. Sub-clause (e) of Article 171 reads as under:“(e) the remainder shall be nominated by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of clause (5).”26. Clause 5 of the aforesaid Article 171 says that the members to be nominated by the Governor under sub-clause (e) of clause (3) shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely, (i) Literature (ii) Science (iii) Art (iv) Co-operative Movement and (v) Social Service.27. Clause 5 aforesaid thus, prescribes a special class of members for being nominated to the Legislative Council, who have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters, as given therein. Nomination thus, can be made of any person, who has the special knowledge and practical experience, in matters which are such as the following viz. Literature, Science etc., meaning thereby in any recognised field, may be in the field of ‘law’ etc. The nomination of such members has a great significance and importance.28. Normally the politicians or the persons, who believe in politics, seek their entry into the Legislative Assembly or Council, by means of election, after facing the electorates, namely, the public, But there may be many such persons whose contribution would essentially be an asset in the deliberations in the Council but who would not contest elections nor would like to be treated as politicians. These persons are of great and special knowledge and skill, therefore, their presence in the Council would not only add glamour to the House but would also raise the standard of debates and would allow the State and the country to have the advantage of their knowledge and to use it at the time of discussions of important issues.29. It admits no ambiguity that the provision of nominating members to the State Legislative Council basically was incorporated with a defined intention and laudable purpose that the persons of immense special knowledge and experience and distinction should also be inducted into the Council therefore, the discretion to nominate such members has been vested with the Governor under Article 171(5) of the Constitution. The Governor who is a non aligned person and holds a apolitical office, has the authority to nominate any eligible person as member to the Legislative Council under the aforesaid provision and, while doing so, it goes without saying that he has to apply his discretion in ascertaining that the persons so proposed are eligible for being nominated. It is, therefore, open to the Governor to suggest amends against the proposal made by the Chief Minister on some valid and reasonable ground, and refer the matter to the Council of Ministers for reconsideration.30. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to Para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 19.11.03 emphasized that the then President had returned the proposal for the nomination of Rajya Sabha members for the very reason that all the nominations were proposed from the field of ‘social service’, a fact which has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, it does mean that in case the Governor finds that the persons who are proposed to be nominated lack essential eligibility criteria or that the nomination has not been made in a fair and reasonable manner, namely, the nominations so made may not be literally against the provision of the Constitution but, in fact, they do not reflect the true intention, purpose and object of the said provision, he would have the right to make any suggestions against such a proposal, and send the matter for reconsideration to the Council of Ministers.31. The importance of the nominated members in the Rajya Sabha and the reasonableness of such a provision was opposed at the time of introducing this provision in the Constitution, as is evident by the speech delivered by Shri Lakshminarayan Sahu (Orrisa:General) on 3.1.1949. The extract from the Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 61 (corresponding to Article 80) dated 3.1.49-Part I is being quoted below:“If we authorise the President to nominate these twelve members, he will always be accused of favouritism by quite a good number of people. People will complain that instead of nominating the right and able persons the President has nominated his own favourites. I am afraid that the danger of the President being subjected to unfair criticism would always be there. It is evident that it is the most undesirable thing that the Leader of our Nation, the Supreme Head of our Republic should thus be an object of unfair criticism. I would, therefore, submit Sir, that the provision for nomination be deleted and in its place Functional Representation be provided. It is said by some people that Functional Representation has been tried and found seriously defective in Ireland. But I submit, Sir, that it is bound to succeed if it is tried along with Panel System. I do not think that I need say much against the system of nominations, but in this connection I may draw your attention to the fact that till recently, we members of Assemblies and Councils in India used to go to one person -Mahatma Gandhi—for advice and used to manage our affairs in the light of his advice. Even if there be any person who is as really great as Mahatma Gandhi was, and for bringing in whom this system of nomination is being provided for and who is not willing to come in through elections, well we can go to him and have his advice. If there be any person of great learning or scholarship who may be unwilling to contest election, well, for myself I can say that I would feel no hesitation in going to him for seeking his advice. We used to go to Mahatma Gandhi for his advice. Similarly, if any able and competent person does not seek election, we may go to him and have his advice. We may constitute a board of such meritorious and learned persons to aid and advise us. We used to go to Mahatma Gandhi for his advice. Similarly, if any able and competent person does not seek election, we may go to him and have his advice. We may constitute a board of such meritorious and learned persons to aid and advise us. The system of advisory board does exist in Russia. We may constitute an advisory board for every minister. Instead of doing what I have already suggested, if we authorize the President to nominate twelve persons, bitter allegations of favouritism and nepotism will be levelled against him and that would not be desirable. Therefore, I propose, Sir, that the provision of nomination should be totally deleted. With these words I resume my seat.”32. This shows that the framers of the Constitution were not oblivious of the unfair criticism, which could be raised against the President, while nominating the members of the Rajya Sabha and,therefore, the Court must be very cautious in meeting such criticism, when raised by the parties, in the exercise of powers of judicial review.33. In one of the booklets of Rajya Sabha Practice and Procedure Series, published in January, 1999, the names of distinguished persons who were nominated in Rajya Sabha under Article 80 of the Constitution right from the year 1952 till the year 1997, were mentioned, which included scholar and educationist Dr. Zakir Husain, renowned historians Dr. Kalidas Nag and Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, Gandhian author Kakasaheb Kalelkar, eminent scientist Professor Satyendranath Bose, social worker Sri N.R. Malkani, renowned exponent of classical dance forms Shrimati Rukmini Devi Arundale, Gandhian scholar and teacher Dr. J.M. Kumarappa, legal luminary Dr. Alladi Krishnaswami, famous stage actor and cine star Sri Prithviraj Kapoor and eminent medical scientist Major-General S.S. Sokhey.34. It says that under Article 80 of the Constitution, the Council of State (Rajya Sabha) is composed of not more than 250 members of whom 12 are nominated by the President from amongst persons who have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as literature, science, art and social service. By adopting the principle of nomination in Rajya Sabha, the Constitution has ensured that the nation must also receive services of the most distinguished persons of the country who represent the diversified strata of our society. By adopting the principle of nomination in Rajya Sabha, the Constitution has ensured that the nation must also receive services of the most distinguished persons of the country who represent the diversified strata of our society. It can also be said about these nominated members that they are the persons who have earned distinction in their field of activity and by nominating them to Rajya Sabha, the State recognises their merit and confers honour on them. Many of such personalities may not like to face the rough and tumble of the election.35. The speech of Jawaharlal Nehru about the nominated members in the House of the People on 13th May 1953 has been quoted as under:“........the President has nominated some members of the Council of the States who, if it may say so, are among the most distinguished, taking everybody in Parliament altogether - it is true, distinguished in arts, sciences etc. - and our Constitution in its wisdom gave that. They do not represent political parties or anything, but they represent really the high watermark of literature or art or culture or whatever it may be.”36. The list of nominated members even in the aforesaid booklet shows that amongst these nominated members, there were jurists, educationists, historians, scientists, poets and littérateurs, engineers, economists, administrators and social workers of proven ability and outstanding merit.37. The booklet further says that the nominated members have, undoubtedly, raised the standard of debates in the House by participating in the discussions on subjects of their interest and taking part in the debates on matters of national importance. The House has always heard them with rapt attention and has, unfailingly, benefited from their balanced views and thoughtful suggestions.38. Speaking on the need and importance of the Second Chamber, Sri N. Gopalswami Ayyangar said in the Constituent Assembly on 28th July, 1947:“.......what we really achieve by the existence of this Second Chamber is only an instrument by which we delay action which might be hastily conceived, and we also give an opportunity, perhaps, to seasoned people who may not be in the thickest of the political fray, but who might be willing to participate in the debate with an amount of learning and importance which we do not ordinarily associate with the House of the People.”39. The nominated members, who possess outstanding merit and distinction, in fact, add to the importance, glory and dignity of Rajya Sabha and make it truly a House bestowing calm consideration on measures of national importance which come up before it.40. The respondents No. 6 to 14, who were nominated by the Governor, all of them were shown to have contributed in the realm of social service. There is an specific allegation in the writ petition that from the bio-data of respondents no. 7, 9 and 10, no practical knowledge and practical experience in the field of social service can at all be inferred and bio-data of respondents no. 6, 8 and 12 are stereotyped.41. It is at all not relevant now, for us to enter into the question as to whether the aforesaid respondents could have been nominated for their contribution in the field of social service, as their term has already expired but looking to their so-called achievement in the said field, we are persuaded to observe that the nomination of members to the State Legislative Council is, in fact, a matter of great importance and responsibility, which ought not to be done so casually.42. The aforesaid provision has not been incorporated in the Constitution for meeting the political desires or to fulfil the dreams of the politicians nor it is meant for strengthening the number of the members of the ruling party in the House, but the provision, with some opposition, was incorporated with a view only to have the advantage and benefit of the knowledge and learning of the distinguished persons, who had contributed significantly and much more to the society in their respective fields.43. The eligibility criteria under sub-clause 5 of Article 171 says that persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely, Literature, Science, Art, Co-operative Movement and Social Service, may be nominated by the Governor. Sub-clause (e) of Clause 3 necessarily requires that a person who is nominated must be having special knowledge or practical experience in the subjects given in clause 5. Sub-clause (e) of Clause 3 necessarily requires that a person who is nominated must be having special knowledge or practical experience in the subjects given in clause 5. The words ‘such matters’ incorporated in the aforesaid Clause 5 means and include that beyond the Literature, Science, Art, Co-operative Movement and Social Service also, if a person is expert or having special knowledge and practical experience in any other ‘such’ field would also fall in the field of eligibility for being nominated as member to the Legislative Assembly, for example, jurist or economist or a person of medical profession etc.44. When such a vast field has been prescribed under the Constitution for nomination of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in such fields, there would be hardly any justification for nominating all the members from one field, namely, social service, as in the instant case, unless, of course, there are some exceptional reasons for doing so, e.g., to say no eminent person from any other field is available.45. Thus, the idea behind introducing the nominated members in the Legislative Council was to get the services, guidance and knowledge of all such members, who were to be nominated from different fields and, not to give a back door entry to the politicians, who could not make their entry, through elections, nor for enhancing the number of members of the ruling or any other political party.46. It may be a different matter that in a given case, if the nominated members belong to one particular field, the Courts may or may not question and interfere with such nominations, keeping in mind their extent of judicial review, because they fall only in one or the other stream, but it would at the first instance, be a matter for consideration by the Governor and of course, also by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, while making the proposal that why all members only from one field, and that too of ‘social service’, are required to be nominated.47. The practice of inducting members of particular political parties, who could not make their entry during elections and who do not have any specialised knowledge or practical experience within the meaning of sub-clause 5 of the Constitution, would not meet the true intention and the spirit of the provisions under the Constitution and such persons are not supposed to be nominated.48. Nominating all the persons only from one field runs contrary to the true spirit and intention of the provisions of sub-clause 5 of Article 171, though it may or may not be illegal but it certainly excludes other distinguished persons of different fields, who otherwise would have adorned the seats in the Council and with whose presence, the Council would have enriched itself, with their eminence, personality, knowledge and wisdom. It can also not be presumed or assumed and for which the petitioner has brought on record various names in different fields, that there were no persons other than the persons falling in the field of social service, who could have been nominated by the Governor.49. It is true that ordinarily, the merit of the persons who have been nominated or could have been nominated would not be seen by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the plea of the petitioner that such a scrutiny can be made by the Court has to be rejected but it is also equally true that the responsibility essentially and basically lies upon the Governor and upon the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers also to see that the object, purpose and intention of the aforesaid clause of nomination is carried through and implemented in its true letter and spirit. The constitutional provisions are to be upheld and they have to be respected and given true meaning, while taking recourse to such provisions. If any person who has been entrusted with authority and the powers to execute and implement the provisions of the Constitution, in a particular manner, directly or indirectly, circumvents the said provision or gives effect to it in such a manner, which tends to defeat the very object, purpose, intention and the spirit of the provision, the Courts would not be abdicated of their right of judicial review within the given parameters.50. In the case of Har Sharan Verma v. Chandra Bhan Gupta, AIR 1962 Allahabad 301, the Court, while repelling the plea that Sri Chandra Bhanu Gupta, who had been the Chief Minister of the State and had taken active part in the politics in the government of Uttar Pradesh for several years, was not having any practical experience in the matter of social service, observed, as under:“The principle underlying these provisions cannot be reconciled with the presence in the Council of Ministers of persons who are nominated to the legislature by the Governor. Every member of the Council of Ministers which is collectively responsible to the Legislature, is expected under the Constitution to enter the legislature by election and not by the back door of nomination. The appointment of a minister who was not elected but owes his membership in the legislature to nomination by the Governor is incompatible with the basic principles on which our democratic parliamentary constitution is founded. It appears to me, therefore, that while inserting clause (3) & (5), the founders of the constitution did not intend that the power of nomination would be invoked to provide membership of the legislature for a minister, much less a Chief Minister who is the head of a cabinet collectively responsible to the legislature.”51. The Court further observed that ‘the purpose of these two clauses is not difficult to ascertain. In every State there are persons who have achieved distinction in various fields and the benefit of whose experience and advise may be invaluable to the legislature of the State, but who have neither the time nor the inclination to contest elections and who should not in the public interest, fritter away their energies in fighting political elections. For example, the President may nominate an imminent nuclear Scientist as a member to enable the legislature to benefit by his views before passing any laws regulating the production of nuclear energy. Numerous other illustrations could be given of persons who have special knowledge or practical experience of literature, science, art, and social service. Clause (5) of Article 171 was apparently intended to make the membership of the legislature available in the public interest to such persons so that they may not contest elections. Numerous other illustrations could be given of persons who have special knowledge or practical experience of literature, science, art, and social service. Clause (5) of Article 171 was apparently intended to make the membership of the legislature available in the public interest to such persons so that they may not contest elections. It was not enacted to enable a minister who has been defeated in an election to enter the legislature by the back door of nomination, or to enable the political party in office whose strength is derived from the verdict of the electorate, to increase its numerical strength in the legislature without submitting to this verdict’ (underlined by us).52. In case a person who stands defeated in election and/or who does not have specialized knowledge and practical experience in a given field, is allowed to be inducted as member through nomination by the Governor in a routine manner, that would not only be irrational or unreasonable in the teeth of the Constitutional provisions aforesaid but would also defeat the very object of the special provision of the Constitution. The nomination of the members of Legislative Council has to be viewed with serious care and responsibility by the Governor as well as by the Chief Minister, so that the Court’s intervention may be rare.53. It may also not be out of context to mention here that every person who has contested the elections seeking his entry into the legislature but has lost in the elections, or every person who had earlier been elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly or has been a Minister, would necessarily not be a person who could be attributed special knowledge or practical experience in the field of ‘social service’. Many people enter into politics as a career for achieving high position and responsible posts and offices. Politics for many, has been and is a professional career, like any other profession e.g. Medical, Legal and Teaching etc. but eminent persons in the field of medical or legal or teaching profession, have to be nominated because of their special knowledge or practical experience in their respective subjects and fields, and not for contributing substantially, in the field of social service though, it cannot be disputed, that doctors, lawyers and teachers and many more professionals do social service, unless they have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of social service.54. The words ‘special knowledge’ or ‘practical experience’ have got obvious significance and they cannot be overlooked and consequently, overshadowed by the political desire of ruling party or of any person for being nominated to the Legislative Council nor there can be any presumption for every politician of having ‘special knowledge’ or ‘practical experience’ in the field of social service. Special knowledge or practical experience has to be seen and adjudged objectively.55. May be, that a politician who has been elected or not, looking to his involvement in social service, can be nominated as member of the Legislative Council but that has to be done by considering the candidature of such a person in accordance with the aforesaid provision of sub-clause (5) of Article 171 of the Constitution and not merely because at some point of time, he has held some political office. There may be persons, who though may not be politicians and had not contested the elections but still their contribution in the field of social service may be well recognised and such persons can well be nominated for being member of the Legislative Council.56. The nominations so proposed or made need not be influenced by political ambitions of the ruling party but are required to be made so that they serve the purpose, for which the special provision of nomination has been introduced in the Constitution.57. We, however, do not find any ground or reason or any occasion for this Court to issue any direction or guidelines, as it is the discretion of the Governor, as discussed above, which cannot be interfered by the Court before hand, in making the nominations and also because the necessary guidelines have been provided in the constitutional scheme of making nominations itself, as noted above, which we verily believe, the Governor would always take into consideration, while making nominations.58. We thus, dispose of the writ petition accordingly._