# MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GOPINATH GUNDACHAR CHAR - **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 767 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-10-06 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1967 - **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, R. S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mysore-state-road-transport-corporation-v-gopinath-gundachar-char-4286 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote B Road Trampl)l't Corporation Act 64 of 1950-ss. 14, 19(1)(a). 19 (1)(b), 19(l)(c), 34, 41i(l) and 41i(2)(c}-Whether Corporation c11n appoint officers and servants in the absence of any regulations framed under s. 45(2)(c). The G€neral Manager of the appellant Corporation issued a notice on July 21, 1964 inviting applications for appointments to two C junior posts in the Corporation. The respondent, who Wae an employee of the Corporation and claimed that he had a right to be promoted to one of the posts, filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the notice on the ground that the Corwration had no power to issue it. The High Court, following its earlier decision in Kamakar Mangesha Desai v. State of Mysore and o1ih£r ([1!168) (U Mysore Law fournal 72), held that until regula- D tions had been framed by the Corporation under s. 41i(2) (c) with the previous sanction of the State Government-and this has admittedly not been done-the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their conditions of service. On appeal to this Court by special leave. HELD: Allowing the Appeal: section 14(2) expressly confers upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers E and servants as it consider~ necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and Section 19(!)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service. Although the conjoint effect of ss.14(3)(b), 34 and 41i(2)(c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions, if any, given by the State Government under s. 34 and the regulations, if any, framed under s. 45(2)(c) until such reguI:ations are framed or directions are given, the Corp0ration "nay appoint F such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of ._its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. ['170 H: 771 A, B-D]. There was no merit in the contention that the G€neral Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s. lZ(c) expressly autho- G rising him to issue it. [771 F]. ref~d:: Harbour Trustees v. D. & J. Nicol, [1915] A.C. 550, 556, CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated H November 16, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1464 of 1964. ShyBmala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. R. B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for the respondent. 767 768 SUPREME COURT R>:PORTS (1968] 1 s.c.B. A ## Text MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A v. GOPINATH GUNDACHAR CHAR October 6, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] B Road Trampl)l't Corporation Act 64 of 1950-ss. 14, 19(1)(a). 19 (1)(b), 19(l)(c), 34, 41i(l) and 41i(2)(c}-Whether Corporation c11n appoint officers and servants in the absence of any regulations framed under s. 45(2)(c). The G€neral Manager of the appellant Corporation issued a notice on July 21, 1964 inviting applications for appointments to two C junior posts in the Corporation. The respondent, who Wae an employee of the Corporation and claimed that he had a right to be promoted to one of the posts, filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the notice on the ground that the Corwration had no power to issue it. The High Court, following its earlier decision in Kamakar Mangesha Desai v. State of Mysore and o1ih£r ([1!168) (U Mysore Law fournal 72), held that until regula- D tions had been framed by the Corporation under s. 41i(2) (c) with the previous sanction of the State Government-and this has admittedly not been done-the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their conditions of service. On appeal to this Court by special leave. HELD: Allowing the Appeal: section 14(2) expressly confers upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers E and servants as it consider~ necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and Section 19(!)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service. Although the conjoint effect of ss.14(3)(b), 34 and 41i(2)(c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions, if any, given by the State Government under s. 34 and the regulations, if any, framed under s. 45(2)(c) until such reguI:ations are framed or directions are given, the Corp0ration "nay appoint F such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of ._its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. ['170 H: 771 A, B-D]. There was no merit in the contention that the G€neral Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s. lZ(c) expressly autho- G rising him to issue it. [771 F]. ref~d:: Harbour Trustees v. D. & J. Nicol, [1915] A.C. 550, 556, CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated H November 16, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1464 of 1964. ShyBmala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. R. B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for the respondent. 767 768 SUPREME COURT R>:PORTS (1968] 1 s.c.B. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, 1. The respondent was a class III employee in the statistical department of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. In October 1961, he was temporarily promoted to act as statistical superintendent at Hassan. On July 21, 1964, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting applications B for appointments to class II junior posts of (a) assistant/ divisional statisticians and (b) labour welfare officers on a pay of Rs. 220 per month in the pay scale of Rs. 220-15-400-EB-20-500 plus the usual dearness and other allowances admissible under the Rules. On August II, 1964, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation had no power to issue the notice and praying for an order quashing it. C The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the notice. The Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave. For the proper appreciation of the point in issue. it is necessary to read ss. f4 19(1)(a), 19(l)(b), 19(])(c), 34. 45(1) and 45(2)(c) of the Roac! Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Act No. 64 of 1950): D E G H "14(1). Every Corporation shall have a Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and a Chief Accounts Officer appointed by the State Government. (2) A Corporation may appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. (3) The conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of the officers and servants of a Corpora, tion shall- (a) as respects the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer be such as may be prescribed, and (b) as respects the other officers and servants be such as may, subject to the provisions of section 34, be determined by regulations made under this Act. 190i. Subject to the provisions of this Act. a Corporation shall have power- (a) to operate road transport services in the State and in any extended area; (b) to provide for any ancillary service; (c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation. places for rest and recreation and other amenitie,. 34(1). The State Government may, after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and· such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment. conditions of service and training' of its employees, wages to be paid to the •rJUNSPORT CORP. v. GUNDAOHAR (Ba·:hawaJ,, .T.) employees, reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks. . (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall· not. de~art from any general instr~ctions iss~e~ under sub-section (!) except with the preV1ous perm1ss1on of the State Government. 45(1). A Corporation may, with the previous sancti?n of the State Government, make regulations, not incons1Stent with this Act and the rules made "thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without preju~ice to the ge~erality of the foregoing·power, such regu.Ja,hons may proV1de for all or any of the· following matters, namely: - (c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the Chief Executive Officer or 769 A B c General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer:" D Admittedly, no regulations were framed by the _Corporation under s. 45(2)(c) prescribing the conditions of appomtment and service and the scales of pay of its officers and servants. In the aflldavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it was stated that the Corporation was taking necessary steps for the fran)ing of the regulations. The High Court following its earlier decision in Kar- E nakar Mangesha Desai v. State of Mysore and others(') held that until regulations were framed by the Corporation under s. 45(2)(c) with the previous sanction of the Sta.le Government, the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their conditions of service. We think that the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and should be set aside. F In Dundee Harbour Trustees v., D. & J. Nicol('), Viscount Haldane L. C. said: "The answer to the question whether a cor· porati?n created by a sta,tute has a particular power depends exclusively on whether that power has been expressly given to it by the statute regulating it, or can be implied from the language used. The question is simply one of construction of language, and Cnot of presumption." Bearing in mind this statement of law, let us consider whether the appellant had the power to appoint officers and servants and to lay down their conditions of service in the absence of regulations framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The appellant is an autonomous Corporation incorporat~d u~der the Act for the purpose of operating road transport serV1ces m the State and extended areas. For the H ~oper disch~rge of its functions. it is necessary for the Corporation to appomt officers .and serl'.an~~- Section 14(2Y expressly confers uion the Corporat~on th~ mctdental power to appoint such o~°'::s. a_nd -~=-~ants as 1t considers necessary for the efficient per- (') [1966] 1 Mysore Law Journal 72. (') [1915] A.C. 550, 556. 770 81JPJ\BllE COURT REPORTS [1968] 1 s.c.a. A formance of its functions. Section l 9(1)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service. Section 14(3) provides that the conditions of app0intment and service and the scales of pay of its officers and servants shall be such as ma.y subject to the provisions of s. 34 be determined by regulations made under the Act. Section 45(2)(c) empowers the Corporation to frame regula.tions with the previous sanction of the State Government prescribing the B conditions of appointment, service and scales of pay of the officers ·and servants. If the State Government issues any directions under s. 34 relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees, the Corporation must obey those directions. The conjoint effect of ss.14(3)(b), 34 and 45(2)(c) is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform c to the directions, if any, given by the State Government under s.3'4 and the regulations, if any, framed under s.45(2)(c). But until such regulations are framed or directions are given, the Corporation may appoint such officers or servants as may be necessar_y for the efficient performance of its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. There is necessarily a time-Jag between the formaD tion of the Corporation and the framing of regulations under s. 45(2)(c). During 'the intervening perjod, the Corporation must carry on the administration of its affairs with the help of officers and servants. In the absence of clear words, it is difficult to impute to the. legisJature the intention that the Corporation would have no power tO appoint officers and servants and fix the conditions E of service unless the regula,tions under s.45(2)(c) are framed. There is no merit in the further contention that the General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21, 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s.12(c) expressly authorising him to issue it. In the exercise of his general 'I' powers of management the General Manager had clearly the power to issue a notice inviting applications from intending candidates. It is not all,eged that he made any appointment pursuant to the notice. The respondent . also contended that he ha.d the right to be promoted to a class II junior pt>st. But there is nothing on the record to show that he ha.s any vested right of promotion to the 0 post. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3032 of 1967 filed by the respondent a.sking for Jilierty to adduce additional evidence arid to raise new contentions is dismissed. In the order dated August 17, 1967 granting special leave to the appCJlatit, the Court directed that the appellant must pay ~e costs of the respond~nt in any event. In the result, the appeal IS H allowed, the order of the High Co)irt is set aside and the writ petition is dismisse