All the 21 AAP-appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, who are caught in the office of profit imbroglio, had contended before the Election Commission last month that a parallel should be drawn between their position and “an intern” or volunteer assistant attached to the Minister-in-charge.
The copies of the replies filed before the Election Commission of India by the Parliamentary Secretaries, said the Parliamentary Secretary was a mere “post” as opposed to an “office”. In her petition, Chandni Chowk MlA Alka lamba said, “No right or entitlement is attached to the post as is done in an office. Therefore, the creation of the post does not amount to creation of an office.”
lamba’s petition said, “It is submitted that even outside the scope of the order, the Minister may seek assistance from any expert advisor or affected citizen at any time. Assisting the Minister in itself will not be sufficient to constitute an office. A parallel can be drawn between the position of the Respondent and an Intern or volunteer-assistant attached to the Minister-in-charge.”
The Parliamentary Secretaries have argued that their posts cannot be regarded as constituting an office as they were non-remunerative and without a dedicated salary unlike ministerial posts and no perks were attached to their appointments. They said the impugned order of their appointment merely granted the permission to use Government transport for official work and the same falls within the powers of the Chief Minister with respect to any duty that the Minister may need any assistance from any person.
All the Parliamentary Secretaries have argued that the legislators were elected directly by the people and the Government does not enjoy any control over them nor they can be removed by any authority of the Government , barring a few exceptions as envisaged in the Constitution.