for post-retirement posts are fraught with possible patronage and illtecference with the purity of the Commission's functioning and should be prevented by legal interdict. Art. 316(2) sets a limit of six years for the office of a Member of a Public Service Commission and an outer limit of 60 years of age ( 65 in the case of the Union Public Service Commission). There is an express bar on reappointment on the expiration of the first term Art. 316(2). There is a further prohibiB tion against the securing of any State employment by Members of the Coi;nrnission oiJ. ceasing to be such Members, subject to a few exceptions (Art. 319). If the argument of the appellant were to be accepted, a Member, be he Chairman or not, or one or the other in succession, will get a total term of six years only. That is to say, even in the middle of his term as Member .. if he is appointed Chairman, he will c get only a run of six years to serve from the date he became an ordinary Member. On the other hand, if the rival contention of the respondent were to prevail, in the case of a Member of a State Public Service Commission, there is a possibility of his getting a maximum of six years as ordinary Member and another six years as Chairman of the Commission in the same State. Of course, we are not concerned with the prospect of appointments in other States as the mischief D sought to be prevented is the possibility of abuse by too long a tenure in the same State. The situation in which a Member may thus enjoy a twelve-year term is so rare and, perhaps, may fall to the good fortune of only a few exceedingly good Members-and, indeed, anything between six to twelve years may not be so very long in the effective life of a public servant-that the apprehension of the object of a brief term being frustrated does not disturb us. In this context, it is reassurE ing to note that in twelve states and the Union there have been, as disclosed by Ext. 'G', only two instances beyond eight years of tenure and only 19 cases where more than a six year term is seen to have been obtained. May be Ext. 'G' is not exhaustive, and incidentally it indicates the practice which has prevailed in the country during the last over two decades of reading Art. 319 ( d) as enabling a fresh term of office from the date of appointment as Chairman. It is clear that F though mere practice cannot legitimise what is illegal it contradicts the consternation raised by the appellant of likely misuse of power. In the last resort the menace to purity of these high offices comes as much from dubious pres>Lrres and patronage as from ,other causes and where the highest seats of power do not gnard against these evils, no constitution, no law, no court can save probity in Administration. We cannot assent to the appellant's argument of fear.
