Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Shrimati Krishna and Deepa Ram under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan, Chairman, District Board, Bikaner, and the Vice-Chairman and members of the Executive Committee of the Board.
(2.) THE case of the applicants is that elections to the District Board» Bikaner, consisting of 20 elected members were held on the 16th of August, 1956. THEreafter the Board was constituted and a Chairman was elected. On the 10th of April, 1957 a meeting of the Board was called. In that meeting, two members were to be co-opted under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Dist. Boards Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and elections of the Senior Vice-Chairman and Jr. Vice-Chairman and the member of the Executive Committee were to be held. THE meeting duly took place on the 10th of April, 1937 and two members were first co-opted, viz. Shrimati Krishna and one Pooranram. THEreafter the Board proceeded to elect the Senior Vice-Chairman, the Junior Vice-Chairman and the members of the Executive Committee. THE grievance of the applicants is that it was not right for the Board to carry on the elections of the Senior Vice-Chairman, the Junior Vice-Chairman and the members of the Executive Committee after two members had been co-opted and that the meeting should have been postponed, and a fresh meeting called for these elections to enable these two co-opted members to exercise their vote as they became members of the Board from the very minute they were co-opted. In addition to this, the apli-cants also challenge the continuance of Shri Ramdayal as a member of the Board on the ground that Deshnoke, from where he was elected, was declared a municipality on the 25th of October, 1956 after the elections to the District Board had taken place. The application has been opposed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is not necessary to set down the grounds of their opposition as they will appear from what we shall say just now. Before, however, we take the points raised on behalf of the applicants, we should like to point out that it was not right for the applicants to mix up the two matters which have been raised in this case, namely one relating to the action of the Board in holding elections on the 10th of April, 1957 to the offices of Senior and Junior Vice-Chairmen etc. and the other relating to the right of Shri Ramdayal to continue in future as a member of the Board. The two matters were entirely distinct and should have been raised by two separate applications. Let us now turn to the first point relating to the meeting of the 10th of April, 1957. Under sec. 46 of the Act, the two Vice-Chairmen have to be elected by a special resolution. Sec. 52 makes it clear that the quorum for a meeting, which has to pass a special resolution, has to be one-half of the total number of members of the Board of the time being. It is not disputed that the necessary quorum was present in the meeting of the 10th of April, 1957. Further sub-sec. (4) of sec. 52 makes it quite clear that it is possible to hold a meeting at which business, which requires a special resolution as well as other business which does not require a special resolution and for which the quorum is one third of the total number of members, can both be transacted. The applicants' contention is that as soon as Shrimati Krishna and Pooranram were co-opted members, they became members of the Board at that very minute and no further proceedings of the Board should have taken place without their presence. Reliance in this connection is placed on sec. 5 (2) of the Act which says that the Board shall consist of elected members, and such persons, if any, as may be co-opted under sec. 7. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. The fact that the Board consists of eleted members and co-opted members under sec. 5 (2) does not mean that a co-opted member becomes a member in the sense that he can take part in the meetings of the Board from the very minute that he is co-opted. So far as taking part in the meetings of the Board is concerned, a member, whether elected or co-opted, can only do so after he has taken the oath prescribed under the rules framed under sec. 176 (See rule 1 relating to Oath of Office published in the Rajasthan Gazette, dated the 10th of December, 1955 under Notification No. 8133/l. S. G /55, dated November 25, 1955 ). According to that rule, "every person who is elected, co-opted or nominated to be a member of the Board shall, before taking his seat, take an oath (or make an affirmation) in the form prescribed below before the Collector or his nominee. " Therefore, a person who is co-opted as a member of the Board does not become entitled to take his seat the very minute that he is elected. He can only take his seat and take part in the meetings of the Board after he has take the oath prescribed before the Collector or his nominee. Naturally, a person who is co-opted will have to be informed of the co-option. Thereafter, he will go to the Collector and take the oath. This is bound to take some time and the person, so co-opted, cannot insist that all further business of the Board must be suspended till he gets the information and takes the oath and is able to taken his seat as a member of the Board. Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to point out anything in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder which compel such a conclusion. The Board had certain agenda before it for the meeting of the 10th of April, 1957. It may be that the first item on the agenda was relating to co-option of members. But that does not mean that after the co-option resolution had been passed, the Board must suspend other business. Learned counsel agrees that if the co-option resolution had been passed after the elections of the Vice-Chairmen etc. , there would have been no illegality. We see no reason for holding that simply because the co-option resolution was passed before the election of Vice Chairmen etc , there was any illegality in the rest of the meeting of the Board. The co-opted members would only be entitled to notice of the meetings of the Board and to take part in them after they had been apprised of the co-option and bad taken the necessary oaths before the Collector. There is no force, therefore, in the contention that the elections, which were held to the offices of Senior Vice-Chairman and Junior Vice-Chairman and members of the Executive Committee on the 10th of April, 1957, were in any way invalid. Then we turn to the other contention, namely that Shri Ramdayal is no longer qualified to continue as a member of the Board on the ground already mentioned. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention either. He was admittedly qualified to be elected as a member when the election took place. He cannot lose his membership unless there is a specific provision in the Act or the Rules which disqualifies him. Learned counsel has not been able to point out to any provision in the Act or the Rules which would in any way disqualify Shri Ramdayal after he had been elected at a time when he was qualified for the election on the ground that he no longer resides in the rural area. There is, therefore, no force in this application and it is hereby dismissed with one set of costs. .;