Mr. President, Sir, I must say that Professor Shah’s amendment is an original one and quite in conformity with ideas prevalent in the commercial world but I am afraid it is out of tune completely with existing practice in the matter of the appointment of the Auditor-General in this country and elsewhere. Actually the man who is an Auditor-General is not an accountant per se. He has a number of other duties to perform and in so functioning he has got to have a knowledge of the entire administration and I think the present method of appointment of Auditors-General in India is perhaps the best. We had some very good Auditors-General who were administrators and who had been in the Finance Department and who have functioned as Accountants-General in various places and who had held other important responsible positions, so that it is not merely a question of arithmetic or accounting knowledge that is necessary but a comprehensive knowledge of the entire administration. From that point of view I think the House will readily concede that the view taken by Professor Shah, however plausible, is extremely narrow. A person who has got the qualification of only Registered Accountant and nothing else, which will probably be the case if you rule our administrative experience, will not suit as an Auditor-General. Having some experience of Registered Accountants myself I do not think it is a type of work that is impossible for anybody else who has got a comprehensive knowledge of administration and accounting to get to know. All the knowledge of a Registered Accountant is certainly known to a person who holds the position of an Auditor-General in the Government of India or Accountant-General and I see no reason why I should support Mr. Shah’s view and ask the House to accept his amendment which if anything will upset the arrangement that now exists and will make it very difficult for the future Government to choose an appropriate person to function as Auditor-General. Sir, I oppose the amendment.
