Judgment : Per: U.C. Dhyani, J By means of present writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 4 to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand. PART - I 2) One who seeks equity, must do equity. One who approaches the equity Court, must approach the said Court with clean hands. The petitioner, in the instant case, has come to the Court being aggrieved against the decision of respondent no. 2, whereby respondent no. 4 was appointed on the post of Secretary to the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. Documents have been offered to show that he is still Joint Secretary, on ad hoc basis. He has not been confirmed on the said post as yet. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he is holding the said past in substantive capacity. 3) A bare perusal of the Rules will reveal that an officer in the cadre of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly must hold the post of Additional Secretary, on substantive basis, for being considered for appointment on the post of Secretary to the Legislative Assembly. Holding of a substantive post of Addl. Secretary is sine qua non for being considered for appointment on the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly. Although, the writ petitioner claims that he is holding the post of Additional Secretary on substantive basis, but this Court is skeptical to accept such plea. The reason is not far to seek. If an officer holds a lower post on ad hoc basic and is promoted in the meanwhile, can it be said that he is holding the promoted post on substantive basis? The order whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary, does not speak a word as to whether he is so promoted on ad hoc basis or substantive basis. An officer, who has not been confirmed on the lower post, in the perception of this Court, cannot be said to be holding a substantive post on which he is promoted. In other words, had the petitioner been holding substantive post of Joint Secretary, then only it could have been thought, as to whether he is holding a post of Additional Secretary on ad hoc basis or on substantive basis. In other words, had the petitioner been holding substantive post of Joint Secretary, then only it could have been thought, as to whether he is holding a post of Additional Secretary on ad hoc basis or on substantive basis. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is not holding a substantive post of Additional Secretary as on date. 4) It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner has not been confirmed on the post of Joint Secretary as yet, for, otherwise he would not have made a representation to the Hon’ble Speaker for changing his status from ad hoc to that of a substantive nature. It is the submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that his client is not well versed in law, and therefore, he could not state the facts in the representation properly. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the writ petitioner could not state the facts properly, the fact remains that, even otherwise, as per record, he is not holding the post of Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary on substantive basis. 5) Although the aforesaid question is not under challenge before us, but the fact remains that, the same has a bearing on the decision of this writ petition, for, the Rules permit a person to be promoted to the post of Secretary only when he is holding a substantive post of Additional Secretary. It will be worthwhile to mention here that a post may be a permanent post, but it is not necessary that a person occupying such post is substantially appointed on that post. 6) There is yet another aspect of the case. When the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary, no procedure as prescribed in Rule 18 of the Rules of 2011 was followed. The writ petitioner was promoted under the orders of the then Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly by a stroke of pen without following the prescribed procedure, and this is the reason this Court has stated, in the inaugural sentence of this judgment, that one who seeks equity must do equity. The petitioner’s promotion to the post of Additional Secretary is itself under cloud, although not under challenge before us. The petitioner’s promotion to the post of Additional Secretary is itself under cloud, although not under challenge before us. 7) The conclusion is – the writ petitioner has no case for being considered to be promoted to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly, primarily, because he is not holding the post of Additional Secretary on substantive basis. Part - II 8) Arbitrariness is the antithesis of reasonableness. In public employment, there must be transparency. Not only transparency of approach, but also transparency of intention. In the instant case, decision taking process in the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Secretary, Legislative Assembly smacks of arbitrariness. Be you ever so high, the law is above you. One has to rise above partisan approach. An Speaker has although plenary powers in his field, but the same does not mean that the principles of public life should be given a go by. It appears that ‘court intrigues’ in the Secretariat of Legislative Assembly came to the fore in the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Secretary to the Legislative Assembly. The file relating to the appointment of respondent no. 4 was not dealt with by any department. Some remarks have been cast against the writ petitioner holding that he lacks administrative experience while working has Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary, though there is no letter written by Hon’ble Speaker to the writ petitioner to indicate that he was lacking administrative experience. The writ petitioner is and has been working in the Legislative Assembly, either of Himachal Pradesh or of Uttarakhand, throughout his life. Now he is at the fag end of his career. The Court has been informed that he is attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2014. 9) This Court, at present, is not concerned with the merit of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no. 4. This Court is only concerned with the transparency, which appears to be lacking when the appointment on the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly was made. Judicial review of administrative action is always permissible to a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The ‘process of appointment’ can always be looked into by the writ court. The post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly was never advertised. No notice was given to anyone seeking response to such appointment. Judicial review of administrative action is always permissible to a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The ‘process of appointment’ can always be looked into by the writ court. The post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly was never advertised. No notice was given to anyone seeking response to such appointment. It was never communicated to the officers of Secretariat, Judicial or Law Department or to the other officers of Legislative Assembly. No one had any inkling as to what was to come and what was in store? After taking a decision, the file was given to the Legislative Department. The Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs appended a note in said file that the same was never dealt with by them. It may be noted here that the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department is the Administrative Department of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, the order appointing respondent no. 4 was wrongly issued by the Principal Secretary, Judicial to the Government of Uttarakhand. The same was not within the domain of the Principal Secretary, Judicial to issue such an order. Principal Secretary, Judicial is usually the link officer of Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department. Principal Secretary, Judicial could have acted in latter’s behalf, but only in his absence. The day the Government Order was issued, document reveals that the Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliament Affairs was very much present in the office. Such defect is curable, had there been transparency in such appointment, which, unfortunately, is lacking. 10) Hon’ble Speaker wrongly relied upon his ‘officers’, who ‘advised’ him to act in a particular fashion. There appears to be a ‘cold war’ between the writ petitioner and respondent no. 4 as can be perceived by this Court on the basis of facts brought on record. Respondent no. 4, with the assistance of “someone”, has pulled the rug under the writ petitioner’s feet. 11) The selection process thus adopted was only a comparison between the two (i.e. writ petitioner and respondent no. 4) appointing one to the exclusion of other. No one else was in the fray, in as much as none else was given an opportunity to apply for the said post. There might be other suitable persons available either in the Judicial / Law Department of the Secretariat or of any other Secretariat (of other State) or in the Parliament. 4) appointing one to the exclusion of other. No one else was in the fray, in as much as none else was given an opportunity to apply for the said post. There might be other suitable persons available either in the Judicial / Law Department of the Secretariat or of any other Secretariat (of other State) or in the Parliament. But none of them had any opportunity to participate in the process. In a nutshell, fairness and transparency were absent in the appointment of respondent no. 4. The appointment so made was on the subjective satisfaction of Hon’ble Speaker. 12) Nurturing and nourishing a dream is not bad. But if the ends are legitimate, the means also should be fair and legitimate. Foul means do not justify the end. The writ petitioner, in the instant case, was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary without following the procedure laid down in the Rules. He made a representation, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Speaker. Respondent no. 4, who might be a knowledgeable officer in the Finance Department, dreamt of occupying the Chair of Principal Secretary, but without following the procedure prescribed for the same. 13) Both have, therefore, floundered in chasing a dream. PART - III 14) Hon’ble Speaker is the final interpreter of the provisions of the Constitution and Rules of Procedure in a Legislative Assembly. His decision in all Parliamentary matters is final. In respect of matters not specifically provided for in the Rules, the Speaker has residuary powers to issue directions. Speaker’s decision cannot be challenged, criticised or questioned. The Speaker enjoys vast powers to ensure smooth and orderly conduct of the business of the House. No Member may speak, unless he ‘catches the Speaker’s eye’. The Secretariat of Legislative Assembly functions under the directions and control of the Hon’ble Speaker. He enjoys supreme authority over the Secretariat staff, the precincts of the House and the Legislative Assembly estate. He exercises his authority with the assistance of Secretary / Principal Secretary. Chair’s discretion is vast and unlimited, but that is inside the House and within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly. 15) Another corollary to the aforesaid discussion would be, regarding the powers of a Constitutional functionary vis-à-vis public employment. Can a Constitutional Functionary breach the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 while giving public employment? Chair’s discretion is vast and unlimited, but that is inside the House and within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly. 15) Another corollary to the aforesaid discussion would be, regarding the powers of a Constitutional functionary vis-à-vis public employment. Can a Constitutional Functionary breach the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 while giving public employment? In other words, whether the powers prescribed under Article 187 of the Constitution of India, which are akin to Rule making powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, will prevail over Articles 14 and 16 in the matters of public employment. Whether any Constitutional Functionary can give a go by to such provisions of the Constitution? The reply to the aforesaid question, in the estimation of this Court, is in the negative. To make it further clear, if any Constitutional Functionary has to make public employment in an organization which he is heading, can he give appointment to any person de hors the Rules of appointment? This Court is of the view that no Constitutional Authority has such powers. He has to be objective. He has to be transparent and he cannot say that he can appoint anybody, as he likes, without following the due procedure for the same. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Renu and others vs District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2175, is an illustration on the point. Three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 20 of the said judgment observed as under: “16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection in likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others. 17. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are an authority on prescribing the limitations while making appointment against public posts in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others. 17. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are an authority on prescribing the limitations while making appointment against public posts in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. What has been deprecated by this Court time and again is “backdoor appointments or appointment de hors the rules”…………. 20. Even under the Constitution, the power of appointment granted to the Chief Justice under Article 229 (1) is subject to Article 16 (1), which guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment. “opportunity’ as used in this Article means chance of employment and what it guaranteed is that this opportunity of employment would be equally available to all.” 16) It will not be out of reference to quote here the recording of the proceedings of Lok Sabha Debates on 04.12.1964, in which, the then Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha said thus:- “My word is final, not because it is always correct; because it is final, therefore, it is correct. I may make mistakes and I do not claim infallibility. There is no appeal and, therefore, it has to be accepted.” (Borrowed from ‘Parliamentary Procedure’ by noted Constitutional Expert Subhash C. Kashyap). But the same holds good only in respect of the proceedings of the House and matters connected thereto. 17) This Court, therefore, holds that the post of Hon’ble Speaker is supreme with reference to the matters on the affairs of the House, inside the Chamber or outside the Chamber, within the precincts of the House, relating to a matter or regarding the procedure of the House. The Court can always ‘lift the veil and peep through’ in exercising judicial review of administrative action. We are clear, in our minds, that whenever there is a dilemma in re exercise of plenary powers vis-à-vis public employment, provisions of Articles 14 and 16 must be followed. 18) We, therefore, quash the appointment of respondent no. 4. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of holding it in clearest of the clear terms that the writ petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly and further, desired transparency was lacking in the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Secretary, Legislative Assembly. 18) We, therefore, quash the appointment of respondent no. 4. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of holding it in clearest of the clear terms that the writ petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly and further, desired transparency was lacking in the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Secretary, Legislative Assembly. 19) This order shall, however, remain stayed for a period of three months from today, during which period Hon’ble Speaker will make arrangement for appointing the Principal Secretary or Secretary of his Secretariat on regular basis, to enable him to run the Secretariat smoothly. Writ petitioner, the senior most officer, in the cadre of Legislative Assembly, is attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2014, a fact which has prompted us to decide this writ petition as expeditiously as possible after day-to-day hearing for so many days. Respondent no. 4 is a responsible officer of the Finance Department, enjoying the faith of the Speaker and, therefore, existing arrangement shall continue for a period of three months, for, otherwise the functioning of such an important Constitutional Institution shall be disrupted. Also, the House is in session now a days. Neither do we want to stall the proceedings of such a coveted Constitutional Institution, nor do we criticize the action of Hon’ble Speaker, who is a symbol of ‘democratic values’, and who only acted in good faith on the ‘advise’ of his subordinates. Our only concern is that the appointment of respondent no. 4 lacks transparency, objectivity and was done surreptitiously. The same could not have been done at the whims, caprices and fancies of the employer, even if it is ‘stop gap’ arrangement. 20) We make it clear that there is no bar in appointment of respondent no. 4 as Secretary or Principal Secretary to the Legislative Assembly on ‘service transfer’, but the same should be done only after adopting transparent and proper procedure laid down in the Rules.