# P.K RAMA.CHANDRA IYE.R & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1984] 2 S.C.R. 200
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-k-rama-chandra-iye-r-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-8534
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

A
B
•
c
•
D
E
F
G
H
..
200
. P.K .. RAMA.CHANDRA IYE.R & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
December '16, l 983
..
[D: A. DESAI & v' BALAKRISHNA EkADl, .TJ.]
.
.
.
.
.
. .
C01tStitution
of J1tdia, 1950 Ari{{:/cs J.2 ·and
32~Indian· Gouncif of
Agricuftllral Rcse<ircl;-Whether -instrunzentiifity of Cent.rat Govern1nent-Whetl1e~
covered by the exp'r~ssion 'other auihorities'~Whether antendable .to· writ jurisdiction
Articles 14, 16.and J9(d)-Pay ,~ctllc of posi of Professor revisetf-Existing
i11ctunbents ndt gi~nted tlte benefrt oj i·evised scale- New inCunzbents _ granted the
revised scale-:Defence of e111ployer was there. was nzarginal rei,ision in qualifiCfl.fiohs
for the post-Action whether dis~rilninatory a11J unfair. :
. ·Article 16-Selection Co1;1~ittee-~h~ther.l:cis po~er 10 rel~x .cssentl:al i;u~li
fications for the post-jurisdiction OJ Courts to interfere ttdtfl "decision of·. Selectiow.
Conunittce-When arises.
·
A-falafides~Selectjon Co111n1itlee-Qua/ificatio11 f.equirenwit relaxed to· suit
preferred .candic(at~-Sck"ction what/ler yiti"ated.
": l'ubli~ e1np/~yni~1u~Experience· to be ~f value and utility 1nust be ai::{juired
after educational qualificaiion obtained-Not while acquiring. Post-graduate qualifi-·
catiun.
.
-"Jndian Coun~il vf Agriculfui,al Research 1977, Rules.13aiu."·14 ;. Fixation "of
- -.-J ..
)1iinitnu111 qllalifying 1narks for tiliglhiiitJ . for viVa-voce test..,.-Further fixatiOn of
(
quilti/yi11g 111ark.V to be Obtai~d at viva-11oce for final ·selection·-validity Of
Supre,nw Court Ruie~ 1966 Order XL·& Constiiution oj India, 19.!0 A~ticle LJ1.:
f¥rit petition disf!?lssed by .High Court al/owing prelilninciry objection that. it izad no
jurisidiCtiOn ta entertaitrpeiition_.:...High Couri becoii1es functus officio and decisio~i
· Oft 1nerits inconseq~ential-Suprf!tn"e Colirt. in .later. case over-ruling the same pre-'
litninary objeclion:........:.Si1p1·em~ Court. e1ititled. to exa1nine matter ~n merits-Review·
.ffltition .n1fiintaii1able .
. The Royal. Con1n1ission of <igriculturc coi1stituted in 1926 reconunende<l
. tho setting .up of ihe"Imp.erial Council Of AgriCult'uriil RescarCh-ICAR~ I~ July.
1929, JCAR \Vas registered as a SociC.ty ·\vlth its offici; in. the Secretariat. · ·Jt \vas
,whq11y financed bY the Governn1ent of .Jndla. By a resolution dated. JanUary 5,
1939 the Governn1ent. of India.modified the-status of ICAR from a. department
·of the. Secretariate to one ~f ah attathed office of the Govern~ent_ 9f India .. Rec·
ruitrnent to various posts in ICAR \vas made· through the Federal Public Service
Corllmission. Its expenses were voted Upon ·as part of the expenses ··incllrred .in
th~ Min~stry Or Agriculture. The control of the Go~enuneiit. of Indi~ perffieated
•·
....
t
P. K. lYER v. UNION.
201
through aμ its activities. To it was transferred the
~esearch Institutes set up
A ·
·by the Government of India. In orde~ to make.it finil.nci.ally viable-a cess _was
levied. and ihe pr~~ds wete han~ed. over to ICAR .fl?r its use.
·
On the advent of independence, the linperial Council of Agricultural :RCsearch
was redesignated as ·Indian Council _of Agricultural R~arc~. With. effect frotn
April 1, 1966 administrative Con~J,Ul over IARI and IVRI and. other institutes
was transferred to IC~~R.
·
·
.
.
.
.
Rule 18 of the !CAR Rules provided· that the ·Society shall establish and
inaintain its own·om.ce, ResearchJnstitutes and Laboratories and that the appoint-·
meats to the ·_various posts .should be ·made in a~rdan~- wiih the Recruitmea,t
Rules framed by t\le Governillg Body. .This rule \Y~ich ·was kept in ~beyance. in
January 10, 1966 was bro1:1g:hf into operation in. itS .. entirety .eft'eCtive_ from Apri1-·1~
1974. Tlie consequenCes of.this rule· becoming ·operative was ·that ~e·.secretariat
o f~9AR ~<ised to pe· an attached o~ce of the-Ministry of Food and Ag_ric;Ulture. ·
The Indian Veterinary. Research Institute \vas one of the.institu(es und.Cr the
adininistrative control of ICAR. The poSt of ProfesS

## Text

_Characters 0–39,896 of 136,675. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39896 for what follows._

A
B
•
c
•
D
E
F
G
H
..
200
. P.K .. RAMA.CHANDRA IYE.R & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
December '16, l 983
..
[D: A. DESAI & v' BALAKRISHNA EkADl, .TJ.]
.
.
.
.
.
. .
C01tStitution
of J1tdia, 1950 Ari{{:/cs J.2 ·and
32~Indian· Gouncif of
Agricuftllral Rcse<ircl;-Whether -instrunzentiifity of Cent.rat Govern1nent-Whetl1e~
covered by the exp'r~ssion 'other auihorities'~Whether antendable .to· writ jurisdiction
Articles 14, 16.and J9(d)-Pay ,~ctllc of posi of Professor revisetf-Existing
i11ctunbents ndt gi~nted tlte benefrt oj i·evised scale- New inCunzbents _ granted the
revised scale-:Defence of e111ployer was there. was nzarginal rei,ision in qualifiCfl.fiohs
for the post-Action whether dis~rilninatory a11J unfair. :
. ·Article 16-Selection Co1;1~ittee-~h~ther.l:cis po~er 10 rel~x .cssentl:al i;u~li
fications for the post-jurisdiction OJ Courts to interfere ttdtfl "decision of·. Selectiow.
Conunittce-When arises.
·
A-falafides~Selectjon Co111n1itlee-Qua/ificatio11 f.equirenwit relaxed to· suit
preferred .candic(at~-Sck"ction what/ler yiti"ated.
": l'ubli~ e1np/~yni~1u~Experience· to be ~f value and utility 1nust be ai::{juired
after educational qualificaiion obtained-Not while acquiring. Post-graduate qualifi-·
catiun.
.
-"Jndian Coun~il vf Agriculfui,al Research 1977, Rules.13aiu."·14 ;. Fixation "of
- -.-J ..
)1iinitnu111 qllalifying 1narks for tiliglhiiitJ . for viVa-voce test..,.-Further fixatiOn of
(
quilti/yi11g 111ark.V to be Obtai~d at viva-11oce for final ·selection·-validity Of
Supre,nw Court Ruie~ 1966 Order XL·& Constiiution oj India, 19.!0 A~ticle LJ1.:
f¥rit petition disf!?lssed by .High Court al/owing prelilninciry objection that. it izad no
jurisidiCtiOn ta entertaitrpeiition_.:...High Couri becoii1es functus officio and decisio~i
· Oft 1nerits inconseq~ential-Suprf!tn"e Colirt. in .later. case over-ruling the same pre-'
litninary objeclion:........:.Si1p1·em~ Court. e1ititled. to exa1nine matter ~n merits-Review·
.ffltition .n1fiintaii1able .
. The Royal. Con1n1ission of <igriculturc coi1stituted in 1926 reconunende<l
. tho setting .up of ihe"Imp.erial Council Of AgriCult'uriil RescarCh-ICAR~ I~ July.
1929, JCAR \Vas registered as a SociC.ty ·\vlth its offici; in. the Secretariat. · ·Jt \vas
,whq11y financed bY the Governn1ent of .Jndla. By a resolution dated. JanUary 5,
1939 the Governn1ent. of India.modified the-status of ICAR from a. department
·of the. Secretariate to one ~f ah attathed office of the Govern~ent_ 9f India .. Rec·
ruitrnent to various posts in ICAR \vas made· through the Federal Public Service
Corllmission. Its expenses were voted Upon ·as part of the expenses ··incllrred .in
th~ Min~stry Or Agriculture. The control of the Go~enuneiit. of Indi~ perffieated
•·
....
t
P. K. lYER v. UNION.
201
through aμ its activities. To it was transferred the
~esearch Institutes set up
A ·
·by the Government of India. In orde~ to make.it finil.nci.ally viable-a cess _was
levied. and ihe pr~~ds wete han~ed. over to ICAR .fl?r its use.
·
On the advent of independence, the linperial Council of Agricultural :RCsearch
was redesignated as ·Indian Council _of Agricultural R~arc~. With. effect frotn
April 1, 1966 administrative Con~J,Ul over IARI and IVRI and. other institutes
was transferred to IC~~R.
·
·
.
.
.
.
Rule 18 of the !CAR Rules provided· that the ·Society shall establish and
inaintain its own·om.ce, ResearchJnstitutes and Laboratories and that the appoint-·
meats to the ·_various posts .should be ·made in a~rdan~- wiih the Recruitmea,t
Rules framed by t\le Governillg Body. .This rule \Y~ich ·was kept in ~beyance. in
January 10, 1966 was bro1:1g:hf into operation in. itS .. entirety .eft'eCtive_ from Apri1-·1~
1974. Tlie consequenCes of.this rule· becoming ·operative was ·that ~e·.secretariat
o f~9AR ~<ised to pe· an attached o~ce of the-Ministry of Food and Ag_ric;Ulture. ·
The Indian Veterinary. Research Institute \vas one of the.institu(es und.Cr the
adininistrative control of ICAR. The poSt of ProfesSor ln JVRI in 1958 carried the
paY. s6a:le bf Rs. 700-1250." There were· 6 p~sts of Prore~sor in. various disCiPI~nes.
Three posts of Profe"ssors were held by. the petitioriers in Wdt Petition N.o. 587/75.
On the introduCtioil of the pay-scales 'recOmmerided by the University Grants
Comrnission, ·the p.iy-scale attached to tl1e Post cif Professor in the· Institute -was
ievised to Rs·. 1100-1600 during the ye·ar 1970-71 and: six new posts o:f _·ProfeSsOrs
in .Various d.isciplines created. Each of the petitioners· who was ·a1ready holding ..
the posts of Professor was not given the ~nefii of the upgraded pay-scales,- while
the new incumbents recruited t(>the newly created post were awar.ded the revised
'·p"y~scales. This led to ,disturbance in the inter se seniOritY in the cadre of .PfOfessors.
In the Wdt Petition \V.P. No. 587/75 to this Court it was contended that
3.s the petitioners fulfilled· the minimunl' qualification•· prescribed for thC post
after ui)ward
revi~ion Of the pay-scales4 denial of· the revised Pay-scales was dis:.
criminatory and violative ~of Article 14, and t~roughly .arbitrary and u_njustified.
On behalf of respondents it was asse(ted that the ~evised scale was not.to-~
autotnaticatly granted to the petitioners-the e~isting holders, ·as the newly crOO.ted
po~ts in the cadre of PrOfessor was not the same as the. ·exist1ni-post~ as there Was ~
margin.al revision in the qua!ifications for_ the post of Professor in the revised SCC'le.
. Th~·petitioner i.n the Re'viCw Petition.No .. 4J77 sought the reView ~f ·the]udginent of this Court dated 3~d October, 1975 'in the Special Leave Petition No. 2339/
15.
He had filed a.wi:it petition in the High ·court:questioning the con·ectness
of tbe. setOCtion o{respondent No .. O.for.the post of Senior Bio-Cbemist·as he dfd·
not possess the" essential qualification, .and the order remOving him from the me'mber-ship ·of the
post-graduate f~Culty' Or_ Indian Agriculture Research Jnstituie. ·.
Th_iS petition was '.fesisted by the respondents, on the.ground that neither ICAR
nor IVRI was either a 'State or other a~thoiity' Within the mecinlng·of the e~pression -·
in Article .12 of the Constitution. It \Vas further colltended that the Selection·.
Comffiittee.had the-po\ver to relax the 6.ssential ,qualificati0nS pf:itainh1g to expefi~ .
ence, and t.hat ·the Committee consisted of experts who were highly qualified persons,
able at evalu'ating and assessing the relative merits of· each of the candidateS, and
that, it \voiild be w1wise to substitute eX.pert's ·decision by Court's decisions. The
\Yrit Peti~on was dismtsSed by the High Court on_ the groun_d that ICAR being
Bc
D
•
E·
: '
F .
G
r
202
· S~PREME COURT REPORTS
[19S4]"2 s.c.R.
A·· " a s?ciety registered ut~dc< ~he SocietieS Registration Act; it was "neither a 'State
or other authority' withih the contemplation of Article .12.. It was further bcld ~
· : that the relationship belw.:en the petitioner 3.nd iCAR was governed by fhe rules
.aOd the bye-laws of the Society and ICAR 'vas free to fill the post of Senior Bio-
:chCmist in any manner it liked, ·and that'as the Petitione·r was not removed from
the rrieln~rship of the F3.culty,_but c~ased to -be· a n1en1bcr, it was· not necessary
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
to hear hinl.
·
This Court upheld th~ decisiOn of the High Court.by its j,udgnrent in S.L.P.
No. 2339/75 and also rejected R.P. No. 79/76,
The Petitioner in Re'4l';'V .. Petition No. 80/76 so.ught review of the jud!;ment
in S.L.P. No.·702.of 1976 which was disposed of along with S.L.P. No. 2339/1975. ·
.
.
.
-
.
.
·The appellant in C.A.· N·o. 1043of1981 filed a writ petition "in the High Cour·t
allcigi'ng that he was selected_ f9r the post of Senio_r Computer in the indian Agriculture Statistics Research Institute~ an affiliate of lCAR." . The ICAR set up the.
,A~ricultur.11 Scientists ReCruittnent Board-ASRB which fran1ed rules in 1977
artd decided to hold a competitive examin~tion in 1978 to recruit scientists. S~Icc
tion was to be made _by a competitive exan1inμtion Con1prisii1g a written test carrying
·. 600 marks in the aggregate and viva-vOce test carrying 100· marks. Jt _was furthCr
'prOvided that anYone to be el~gile for b~ing ad1nittCd in the merit list should also
: have the additional qualific~-tio.n .of at least obtaini.ng. 40 1narks in the viVa-vot:c
test.
The appellant contended that he has ~eCured 364. n1arks out of 600 in the
written examination and 38 1narks out of 100 In the viva-voce tpst, ind that the
actio11. of Boilrd in fixing ni.inimum· qualifyiilg marks in the viva-vocc exa1nination
arid basing the final selection on this criterion lacked both the aO.thority of law
and :rules. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in lilnine.
' .
Allowing the Review Petitions, Writ Petition and Appesa.l :
-
'
~
HELD : 1.
(i) In writ petition ·No. 587/75, the !CAR is directed by a {
mandamus to put tho thice petitioners in the revised scale of Rs. 1100-1600
sanctioned for .the post of Professor effective from ihe day when others selected·
as ProfC:ssOrs ·in sister
disciplines.
were awarded the revised scale of Rs.
1100-1600. [247 A]
(ii) In Special Leave Petition No. 2339/75, the !CAR is directed
by a
iniridamus 'tO. award to Dr. Y.P: Gupta the scale of Rs. 1800-2250 fron1 the date
_the same was given· to r~pondent.No. '6,".Dr. S.L. Mehta. The arrears payable
" putsuant to the direCtion shall be paid within 3 mon_ths.
Dr. Y.P. Gupta to be
taken back as a men1ber of the Faculty of·the post-graduate school of IARI with_in
• periQd of > month•. [247 Bl
(iii) In S.L.P; N:o. 702/76, it is directed that a'special Assessrr_ient Corimlittee
may be set up to examine the case of Dr." T.S. Ra1nan for promotion to S-3 grade
.
.
.
within a p"eriod. o.f 3 months. (247 DJ. .
.
. .
·
(iv) ln.C.A. 1043/81, the ICAR. a'nd ASRB are directed to Prepare the· merit
list in respect of those candidates who were called for viva voce test, but were not
included in the merit list On the aggregate o·f ffiatks obtained by them. If there
· · ls ·a vacancYand the aPpellant cOmes wi~hin the zone of selection he shall be
·'
P. K. IYER V. UNION
2o3
appointed. The appoifltn1ent \vould be prospective and would be- effective from
the date of the appointn1cnt. [247 E-F]
2.· (I) _Apart fro1n. the criteria devised by fhc jt.idicial elicta, the very birth
of ICAR and its continued existence over half a century and its present p0Sitio1'l ·
would Ieive no dOubt that ICAR. is almost an inseparable adjunct of the GOvern1nent of India having an outward forn1 of being a So_cif!'ty. it could be styled as a
A
Society set up by the State and therefore; would be_ an instrumentality or. agency
B
of the Central Governmcrit and therefore, it is 'other authority'. within the meaning
of the expression in Article l~, and the writ ju.risdiction can be invoked against
it. [216 BJ
•
(ii) !CAR.came into·existcnce as an integral dcparti11c1H of·thc.Govern111ent
of. 1ndi.-i. and liter on ·became an attached offi:_ce of the Central GoVerntttent. The
composition of.the lCAR as evidenced by_·Rulc 3 could not have been more gov~
crnn1cntal in character than any dcpartrii.cnt·of the Govermnent. The Governing
. Body of the Society' Cbns,ist of a President of the Society,· \Vho is n'onc other than· a
Cabinet Minister of the Governriicnt of India.
Other. n1en1bers of the Governing
'
Body are en1inent scientistS. nof exce~ding nine in 1fun1ber to be appointed. by -the
President; there· is none outsirie the Governn1ent in- the GoV'c_riling . ·nady.
Rule,
98 1nakes it ·abundantly clear that the Rules of _the SOciety can neither be.altered
nor amended exCep~ with the sanctio.n Of the ·Governn1ent of India. - Rllle 100
shows that the Rules becarnc ojJerative after they were approved by the Governn1ent
. Of India. The audited accounts of the Society a·long with the auditor.'s report'
thereon were to be placed before the Society at its An1iual General M~eting and
also on the table of the Houses of Parliament. Rule 18 provides that the appoint1ner~t to various posts under the s.ociety ·shall be 1nade in accordance with the
, Recruitment Rules frarned for the purpose by the GovenliJig .Body with the prior
approval Of the Government of India·. The ad1ninistrative a~d -the financial ·con~
teal of the Governn1ent is alf pervasive.
The rules and bye-laws of the Society
· can be framed, amended ·or repeal"ect only. With the. sa'nc~ion of the GoVeinment
of India. [219 E-F; 220 B-FJ •
Sabhajif Tewary .V. U.O.I. [l975J3 SCR 616 -distinguished and ~imited and.
U;P. Warehousing .Corporation v._ Vijay. Narain [1980J 3 SCC 45~ referred to.
c
D
E
3.
The· guarantee of equ.ality- in all its pervasive character enables. this ·
F
Court to ren1ove discri1ni1la.tion and to restore fair play in action . .{226.C]
The instant" cil.se, is a glaring example of discrirrllnatory treatn1ent accorded
.to old experienced and highly qualified hands with an evil eye and uneq'ual hand.
No attempt was made to sUstain tbe scales of l)ay for the post of Pr~fessOr on the
· doctr.ine of classification because the· classification 9f existing incumbents as being
distinct ai1d separate froni newly recfu.ited hands with fimsy change in essential
qualification ·would be wholly irrationar and arbitrary.
T~e case of the petitioners
fof being.put in the revised sccile of Rs fI00-1600 from the date" on which newly
created Posts of Professors in Sister disciplines in IVRI and other institutes were
created and filled in revised scaie iS ~nanswer<' ble and mu~t be conCeded l226 .B~DJ
Randhir Singh v· U.O.l (1982] 1 SCC 618, referred to.
G
•
4 . The mo1nent the High Court held that it had no JuriSdictiOn to· entertain
· he writ petition, it becan1e /tfltctus officio and there[ore·, its decision on the merit
H
.,
A
B
•
c
,
D
E.
F
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1984] 2 s.c.R.
of the C.ontcrition··is ·or no consi;:Quen~ and.at any rate could not concltide the
mat~Cr.- Now that.it has been held _that the writ·peti~ion is maintainable.·on· the
finding th!l-t IC~R and its·_affiliates a~e othCr authority within· the me~ning of the_
~xpr.cssion in Article 12, justice ckmands that the court must examine th(: ~on
tentions On merit. The ptelimii:ia:ry objeciion. over-ruled and ·~e ievie\v petition
allowed. [229 F-G]
·
I
· s·. ,· It is w~ll--settfed -th;t expefience to·l,Je .of valu~ and utility n1ust be acquired·
af~r tl).e educ'1tonal qualification is obtained-·and hot while acQUirtng the postgraduate quahficatiOn. [232 A]
._in the ii!stant case, preParing thesis Clfter giadu<'tion {o'r· acquiring post-~
graduate degree .would rtot count toWr:n:ds presCrlbed ·experienct · -qua_lificatidn. ln
th~ case of Ph.D °.cteg:ee·awarded on research the situatic~n nlay be diffe;e11:t. .[232 BJ
6. 'The Court must IoOk \Vith.resp~,ct tipbn
th~ pcrformi>.nce Of dutieS by
experts· in. their respective. fields.
However,_ the .task of.. ushering. z .Society based.
'on rule of law is erl1:rust.Cd io this court and it cannot abdicate· its function$. · Once'
it is fllPSt satisfactorily established- tl'l:at the Selection Conunitteci did O:ot. have thC
power ·to relax i.:ssential qualification peftaining to expefience, ' .. the eritire process
-Of 5".ilec.tiOri of thi 6th respondent was in contr:avention of the established nom1s
prescribed. by the advertiseinent and Power of the Sdectio~ Coffimittee and pro.; .
ccdure for fair and jusl seleC.tio11 and equality in
the ffiatter of public ~mployme1lt
and. to_ rectify resultant inji.i.stice and· esiabiish -constih.itional value this
Court
must interfere. [234 I>-EJ ·
·
·
_Stale "fBihar v. Dr. Asis Ku111a~ Mukherjee [i975] ~ SCR 894, referred .to.·
.
'
-
' '
.
In the instant CTJ$e, the first Selection Committee examined. the suit!lbility
of seven crndidates including _the petiiiollef~ and ~pecifically recorded its, finding
that none of the candidates .. interviewed or cOnside.red in absentia including : .
respondent No. 6 Who w3.$ selected at. a la:ter. stage~ fu~lled a~l .the esseiltial
quali_ficatio-ns laid down for : the post.
Ttie Committee recommended that ..
·the post be re-advertised -after ~mplyfying the
essential
qualificatiOn jn the
. mt'ltter of exPerience, Viz. '10 yea1;s research exper.ienCe in the
field of protein
Chemis_try? .. The -post. was the post of Senior. Bio-chemist. Jnitialy experience
. required was·in _the fiei<l of Nutrition with p:iticulilr reference tO Qu(l'ntity and
· · .Quality of protein in food grainS as.evidenced by· published work i,yhile'the ampli-
. fied esselltial qualification was-research·experience ill the field of protein Cheffiistry ..
It is difficult to efface the i~pression that the amplification was done· .keeping in
· View the qualification'- whic~ respondent No;' 6 ha.d .. ·~oreovcr respondent No. 6 ·
, appeared not· tc c8-rry on research. in th.e line of Nutrition o.r protein Chemistry
· 3rid therefore h~. did not fulfil· the qualification at <'ll and he could not therefore
haVe even bee~ Called for interview by the Selection Committee. The .Selection
Committee alsO did nOt h.ave the- power to relax the essential qu"lificati'on, fo.r th~ .
post; ·The seleCtjon of respOitdent NC1; 6 is. contrary to ·rules and orders. aiid in ·
violation o( prescribed norn1s~ ·He. was ifieligible. for the poSt when seleCted a~~ his
selcction .. nd appointment has to be quashed and set aside, [230 G·G, 233 E-F, 234 F] '
1.· Th~·High Court was·clearly in err.or in.obsl.:"rving that eit~er Dr. Raw_n·
(petitioner in R.P. No. 80176) was not hopeful of getting the job or he had some ·
other reasons for Dot applying for the same .and therefore his grievance· cannot
)
__ ,
...
)
·~.··
...
•
P."K. IYER ·V. UNION.
205
be entert"ined. This ·is clearly contrary to record. -He had applied earlier and -
w_ s entitled to be called--fcir interview as noted in the proceedings. It w~~; obligatorY upon the second ·selection -Comrriittee ·10 _inform -him to appear for t~e
intervi'e and adequate .steps should have been taken to give the intirriation '"because
he was attached t9 the institute and .was ·in ~ctive sCr1ice of.the institute and intimaiion to him would not require any herculern ·effort on the. p?.rt :of the Committee.
But he.-has been-assesSed thrice 'by the Assessment Committee for p~Omoti0n to
S-3 grade. and found wantin~. · T~e Insti.tute
sh~ll set up a speth.•l ~~sessment
Committye t9. 3ssess· his sllitability. for promotio~ t,o .S-3 gr_ade ·by ~xamltfing his
work.from 1976 .. He is.not entitled to any further relie.f. [239 0-240A, 241 EJ
8.
A combip~d-re3ding. of_Ruies · 13 and 14; indicate that, it i~ open to
the Agricuitu:faI Scientist Recruitment Bciard to prescribe minirhtirn marks which
the candidates must obtain at the written test before becoming eligible for viVa-voce
test. After the Candiclaie obtain~ minimum marks or· more at the written test he
.becomes. eligible "for being called for .viva-,voce test, ~nd he has t() appeir at the
viva-voce test.
Neither Rule· 13 nor Rule 14 nor any other rule enables. tti~- ASR'B.
,'-to prescribe nlinimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the_ cilndidate at the
viva-voce fus_t.
The language ·of Rule 14 clearly- negatiyes any s"ucb power in the·.
ASRB when it provides that after the, written test if the c..1.ndidate hfl,s obtaiqed ·
1Tiinim,um marks, he is eligible for being ·Cfllled for viva ... voce test and the final merit
list would -be. drawn up according to the aggregate of ·marks obtained-by the candidate .-in. : wd°tten teSt plus viva-voce examination. {244 D-fJ
·
Ii:i the instant ~ase; (CA N~ .. 1043/81) ihe :adctiti6nal qualificat!On \vhich
:ASRB prescribed tO_ itself that-the ·candidate must have a
further qualificatiori
· obtaining minimum markS in the viva-vocc. test dves not fi.nd place in Rules· 13 ilnd
and 14. If such ·power is 2!aimed, it h~s to be explicit and. cannot be read ·by
neces'sary .iinplication for the Obvious rcasoll that such deviation from the rules .
is likely. to cause irrepearable and irre'versible ·ham1. onW an additional qualification Of obtainin.g.mininlun1·. marks.at_thc viva-voce test fa· adhered to, a candidate
_who. may figure high-up in thC metit-list was likely.to be rejected on th"e ground
. that ·h~ .has not obtained n1ihimum. qualifying marks· at viva·vOce· test.. ~s list
prepared in contravention of the Rules caiinot be sustained. ··However, it" is not
possible at this late stage to reject'· the entire seleCtion and it would be equally
ii:nproper tO disturb the selec.tion. of those who had b~n_ selected and :~ppointed
way back .in 1978. If there is a·vacancY.and if the appellant comes within.the zone
of selection on the aggregate of inarks obtained by hin1. his case shall -be con~
Sidered for appointm<!nt prospectively and n·Ot rctropsectively. -1244 G-H; 245 C;
~D;~
.
.
.
· ORIGIN~L JuRISDicTION : Writ Petition No. 587 of 1975
(Under article 32 of the ConstHution)
with.
Review Petition No. 4 of 1977
(@SLP (Civil) No. 2339 •of 1975 &
Reyiew Petition No.' 79/76) · .
•
A'
B
c
E
F
G.
•
H
206
A
B
•
SUPREME COURT REPORT.S,
[1984}2 S.C.R.
and
Review Petition No. 80 of 1976
(Arising '0;1t of SLP (Civil) No. 702 of 1976)
and
Civil Appeal No. 1043 of 1981
. .
.
.
.
.
Appeal· by Special leave from the Judgment ;111d Order .,dated .•
tire Sth May, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition
No. 553 of 1980.,.
~
c
.YogeshwarPrasad and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Petitioner in
WP. 5.87/7.5 & RP. No .. 4/77.
M.G. R amchandran for the Appellant in CA.· .No. 1043 of 1981.
· Abdul Khader, Mi.<s .A" Suhhashini and Girish Chandra for the
D
Respondent in WP. 587/75.
K.G. Bhagar~ Addi. Sol: Gene;a/ and Ms. A. Subhashini for the
Rcspoudent in RP. No. 4/77.
.
'b,. Gobwdhan and C.V. Subba Rao for ·Resnc-1id.enl m CA.
E
No. 1043 of 1981.
G
H
' '
.
B.N .. Lokur, and C.N. Ralnaparkhi for Respondents. 2-7 in
WP. No. 587 of 1975.
Judgment of the Cour; was delivered by
DESAI, .J.
Tn th.is group '.of writ pet1t1on, civil ·appeal. special
leave p~titiqn and review petitions, a_ common
que.:~tion_ of la\v. is
raised whether Indian Council of Agricultural Re.search ('lC AR for
short) ·and its affiliate Indian Veterinary . Research Institute (lVRI ·
for shortfare either itself tlie·Sta{e or such other authority .as would
be comprehended in the.expression 'other authority in Art. 12 of the
Constitution 7
. Re: 'W.P. No. 587/75 :
•
No.
. .
.
Pe;itioner No. l was Professor of. Animal Patholcgy, pet1ticmr
2 was Professor of Animal Genetics and petitioner No. 3 was
•
',.c,,;,.....--..
. ( -
•
. . 1
(
•
I
...
-·~ -
"
• ~. K. IYER ":UNION (Desai, J.)
207
•
·Professor of. Veterinary Parasitology,
all attached to IVRJ. Six
posts of Professors one each in Animal Pathology, Animal Genetics.
Velerinary Parasitology, Animal Nutrition, Bacteriology and' Physiology were created on the i1itroduction of the post-graduate wing
in IVRI in 195.8 .At the relevant time ·the post of Professor carried
the scale of Rs. 700-)250. Of the six posts, first mentioned, three
posts of Professors were held by the petiti~ners in their respective
·discipline, ·On lhe introduction of the scales recommended by th.e ·
University Grants Commissio~. the pay scale attached to the post
of Professer in IVRl was revised to Rs. 1100-1609: After the up-·
ward revision during the year 1970-71, the cadre of Professors in· IVRJ
was expanded b'r -creating six ne\\'. . ·post of Professors in
vafiouS
disciplines. Surprisingly, ach of· the petitioners, ,who ·was already
holding post of Professor, was not given the benefit of the upgraded
scale attached. to the post of Professor wliile ol) the other hand. the
new·incumbent recruited in . the newly created posts in the year
1970-?°f were a warded the revised scale of Rs. 1100-1600. ·This led .to
the disturbance in the inter se seniority in the .cadre of Professors
and manifested· an anomalous. position that the old incumbents of •
the posts. of Professors such as petitioners, ·continued in the prerevised scale of Rs· 7bO-l250 while .the new incumbents were put in the
revised scale of.Rs I 100-1600 both having the.designation of Professor
and there is no appreciable difference· in the qualifications attached
to .the post .. )Vhen this was. brought to the notice of the authori\ics
concerned, the ICAR With the con•urrcnce of the Minisfry of Finance
).
resolved .'as per. decision dated· April 6, 1972 to ·award the·· revised
scale of pay attached to the post of Professor to the· peNioners, b11t
this was subject to the condition that it wollld not be automatic but
~ the existing incumbents of posts may be considered for revised scale
""
·along with other suitable .Persons.
Tt was imp'.ieit in· the condition
prescribed that the petitioners wi~ have to stand ·in. competition ;,ith
others applications, if there be any, and go througli the ha+ard of a .
. °" fresh selection for tlle post each one was alreadv. holding.. This is
the' first grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition con-.
tending that the petitioners were qualified for the posts of Professor.
and that ea~h of them was holding the post from 1963, 1970 and 1970
•.
respectively. TM
petitioners made. various representations basing
their claim inter a/ia on fair play, equality of opportunity.in.the matter
of public employment arid equal pay for equal work as well as the
provision co11tained in Fundamental Rule -23. The petitioners ~Jsci·
~ .contend that they fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed for the
· post.a_fer upward rt:,vision of the pay~sca1e; and they_have the. requfsi1&.
experience and ihat they are performing the same or identical duties
.
.
. .
'·
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.•
... •
A
B.
c '
D
F
G
.H
•
208
.. SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS
·. [1984] 2 S.C.R.
a; are being performed by ne\VlY recruited. Professors in sister di~"
ciplines, and that denial to the1n of the revised pay scales for. foe post
of Professor .aparf from being discriminatory .and violative of Art: 14·
.
. .
.
is thoroughly arbitrary ancf unjustified. lt .appears that pursirnnt
to the didsion dated April 6,' 1972, the ICAR 'issued an adyertisement
on May 21, 1974 inviting applications for the post of ProfeBsor in
. . Animal· Pathology,. Animal Genetic$ .and Veterinary Parasitology
· in the revised scale of Rs. I J00,!·600: These were 'the posts alrea.dv
held· by petitioners. The advertisement set
.out ·the .essent.ial and
·desirable qualifications ·for each post. Petitioners contend that
the duties pertaining to the post of Professor in the upgraded scale
are' the same· as performed by the petitioners and that this action
. of inviting f~esh applications for post already held by ·the petitioners
disclosod a cover attempt t0 remove the petitioners. 'from the posts
held by them for years. ·-Petitioners further contend that only three
po·sts ·held by the. petitioners have been advertised inviting the aj:lpiications for fresh recruitment while there we.re others .\vho were ho'ding
posts .of Professors in the pre-revfsed ·scale .and. to whom bendlt of
automatic upward revision was granted and this disclcscd n-0t cnly
the bias of the ICAR but also· subjected the petitioners to grcss discrimination. Serious allegations of bias :ind malafid.o have been ·
mad·e·against respondent No .. 6, the Director or' IVRI, and Director
General ufJCAR, which.need not be set out here. It may, however,
lie .stated that tho.ugh the \·a~ious functionaries workihg .in IVRI
and TCAR are highly qualified persons, profes~ional rivalry had led
to such poisonini; of the· atmosphere and character assassination
·had become so rampant and the. environment had become so snffo-
,
cati~g that the ·Government of India ·had to appoint a Committee -·-1
presided·over by late Shri P.D. Gajendragadbr, retired Chief Justice
· ·
of the Supreme Court' with wide terms of reference which. amongst
others included' the recruitment· and personnel policies. of !CAR as
y
well as Institutes a!id Centres working under it and io suggest rnearnrcs
'!"
· for th,eir improvemen\. It is alleged that absolutely incmrcct, imprc·-
· '
per and prejudiced .entries are made. ii1 confidential reports with a·
vieiv to harming foe. ~areer of the perso~s who have fallen froin the
grace of the Directo.r al)d that therefore, the C'ourt,should .lift the
veil. of the so'called society and peep i1ito the realities of life. The .
petitioners ,,ccordingly prayed for an appropriate writ, order or .
direction to quash ihe advertisement dated May 21, .1975 inviting .
applicatfons for the· posts nf Professors in three subjects already held
by th.e petitioners and to confirm 'the petitionerS'in the aforemeiltion(d
p:ists and tc'i give them the benefit of the !'fOVised.scale from the date
from whkh. fr was given try Professors in sister disciplines and to quash
-
,.
-
-
P. K. IYER v. UNION.(Desai, J.)
209
the adverse entries in' the confidential ~eports of the three petitioners.
On these averments petitioners filed the present writ petition under
Art. 32 of the Constitution.
Re : S.LP. No. 2339/75 with R.P. No. 4/77 :
·one Dr. Y.P. Gupta filed Writ Petition No. 276 of 1972 in the
High Court of Delhi questibning the correc.tness of the order removing
him as member of the faculty of the post-graduate school of· Indian
Agricultural Research Institute {IARI for short). Petitioner Dr.
Gupta alsll' questioned the. validity of appointment of Dr. S.L. Mehta
respondent No. 6 in the High Court to the post of Senior ,Bio-chemist
·in IARl and claim.ed. that he was entitled to. be appointed .to that
post. This petition was resisted by the respondents primarily on
·the ground that neither ICAR not IVRl is either a State or• other
authority within· the meaning· of the expression in Art. 12 of the
Constitution, When the matter came- up before the Division 'Bench
of the Delhi High Court, a .direction was given that in view of the
importance of the questions that arise for determination in the writ
. ·petition before the court and in view of the .various decisio.n which .
'have to be recpnciled, the petition should .be heard by a larger Bench.·
Pursuant to this direction, the matter came up before a Bench of five
Judges. The larger Bench formulated four questions for its considerations :
''.I.
Do the petit1oners have legal right to chaUen~e the
appointment of respondent 6 ?
2.
Has .the Director-General of the !CAR acted in· con'
.travention of any legal obligation in making the appointment. of respondent 6 .?
.3.
Has the said appointment vitiated by the mala fides of
Dr. ·swaminathan and/or of Dr. Naik?
4.
Was it bad because of the want of qualifications .of Dr.
Mehta 0r non-compliance with the prescribed procedure
in_ making it ?"
·
The court answered the fint question against the· petitioner
h~lding tQ.at ICAR is a society registered under the Societies Registra-
.
.
A
B
c
E
F
G
tl'on Act and it is neither a State nor other authority within contemplaH
tio< of Art. i2 of the ~onstitution. The court further held that
..
•
•·
•
A
c
D
E.
F
•
G
210
· SUP.REME COUl\T REPORTS
( 1984] 2 S C R.,
the. relaii.on between the petitioner and ICAR' is gMerned by a con- ·
tract and the r~les and the bye-la\vs or tl1e Society .and !CAR was
free to fill in the post of Senior Bio-chemiste in any manner it llked.
The court observed that .the petitioner being· a mere employee, he
has no legal right agafost the employer and in the .absence of 'any·
· statutory elemen{ governing his emplo)'ment, the relation is governed
purely by .a contract. and a· breach. of contract, if any, would. ·not
permit a declaration in favour of the petiticner. Bri<fly, the .court
held that the remedy by way of writ is not available against !CAR.
On the second question the court held that the Director-General
owed no obligation or legal duty in making the ~ppointment of the
sixth respondent which can be. enforced by a writ. ·petition. · Questions
Nos. 3 and 4 were cdea!Uogetber and it was held that the pleadings
. were inadequate to permit a finding. of ma]a fide and in the absence
of proof there. is nothing to show tl1at .the· appointment of the sixth
res~ondent was vitiated either by mala fides. or by ·non-compliance ·
with procedure..
Consistent wjth .these findings, the writ pe.tition ·
. of Dr. ·Gupta was dismissed. Simultaneously, the writ . petition
filed by one Dre T.S. Raman being Writ Petition Ne. 669/72 was
dismissed. by the common iu4gmcnt:
Dr. Y.P: Gupta ii.Jed S.L.P. No. 2339 of J97.5 in this Court.
On O:ofober 6, 1975, this Court.directed a notice to be· issued to ibc
·respondents to sh~w cause why special leave to 'appeal· shoui<l 1iot
· be .. gra.nted. · When the .m1ttCr came up again before this Cm.irt on
July 2!, 1976, Mr. Lokur, 'learned counsel. appearing for the !CAR
:'>._
•
.stated to the Court that the respondent-council would consider the ·.: ·-f.
question of taking back the petitioner as a member of the
postgraduate faculty ofIARf. After recording this statemei1t, the Special
leave potition was · disljlissed. ·Petitioner. Dr. Gupta filed Review
.Petition No. 79 or 1976 requesting the Court to review its. order
dismissing the special le~ve petition. This review petiticn was rejected . · y
on October 27, 1976. As second review petition wns not .barrecl"
at the relevant time, Dr. Gupta filed Review Pctitien No. 4/77 which
is.· directed to be heard in th.e present group of appeal, writ petition
· and special leave· petition.
· J?e : R.P. No·. ·so of1976. : Dr.T.S. Raman whose Writ Petiti~n
No. 669 of 1972· was heard along with Writ Petiticn of Dr. Gupta
and which was a!s'o dismissed by the common judgment, filed Special
Leave Petition ·No. 702 of 1976 in this Court·. This petition was
· R ·
dismissed by the .Court on Augu.t 30, 1976. · Dr. T:S. Raman filed
Rovieiv P.otition No. 80 of 1976 which iS being heard i.n this group.
.
.
.
-
-
•.
•
----.;.,' -
..
..,...
..
P. K. IYER v. UNION (Desai, J.)
. 211
Re: CA. No. 1043/81 : Appellant Dr. Om Prakash .Khauduri
fifod Writ Petition No. 553 of 1980 in the High Court of Delhi alleging
.. that he· was selected for the post of Senior Computer with Ifidian
Agricultural Statistics Research Institutes, ana affiliate of.JCA'R.
· iCAR set up Agricultural Scientists Recruit~ent Board (ASRB) ·which
deCided to hold a competitive examination to recruit scientists to be
appointc'd under various disciplines. ICAR framed rules setting
out the terms and conditions for ac,\mission to. the competitive examiri~tion .. Appell~nt applied for admission to the ~ompetitive examination iii 'Agricultural Statistics' . .'discipiline. The written test ·was
ldd froni 1st to 4th February, 1978: The Board incharge of . the
selection and appointment on. the comparative merits as evidenced
by the performance in the w1'itten examination selected 20 candidates
· i~cluding the appeUant as ~aving obtaine~,e pres~ribed qualifying
marks for. the purpose .of viva voce examilra'tion which was held on
. April !0th and llth, 1978. Aftedhe viva voce test, 13 candidates
1iuro declared as successful.and were offered appointment a·s scientists
in the di,eipline 'Agricultural statistics'. The appellant failed to
qualify for the. same. According to the
appellant, 21 vacal)cies
i·omained unfilled: · Appellant contends that he h1!'il secured -364
marks out of 600 in tl\.e written examination and 3il m'arks out of
JOO in the. viva voce test. · It is alleged that the appellant was declared
. Un5uccessfu\ because the .Board incharge of the examinqtion ·has by
itself .·determined without any authority· that anvortc who obta;ned
less.than40 marks atthe viva· voce examination would not be eligible
for selection for the posts. · It is therefore, contended that the action
'of the BJard _in fixing minimum qualifying' in arks in the viva voce ·
examination and basing the final selection on this arbitrarily .fixed
criteriou lacks both the authority of law and rules and. thai the B.o.ard
has acted arbitrarily and without the authority of law; ·Appellant
·accordingly .. made representa.tions \)ut failed- to cvqke a sympathetic
reply, and therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition in. the High
. Court of Delhi which was dismissed -in limine on 'the ground that .the ·
writ petition ·against ·,the resppndent was not maintainabl~. Hence .,
this appeal by special leave.
·ordinarily one ·would. sincerely .deplore th.e d·elay in disposal
of a problem brought before the Court, but occasionally, one comes
ac1:oss a case in which the sheer passage of time and the fast removing
.. scenario of changing pattern of .law resolves the. dispute to
some
extent ..
Mr.- Lokur appearing for I<;AR raised a preliminary objection
...
. '
A
B
... c
G
H
.,
•
A
B
•
212
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS
[I 984] 2 s.c.11. ..
that ICAR is not an agency or instrumentality of the State and therefore it is not .comprehended in the expression 'other authority' within
the meaning of the· expression in Art. 12 of the Constitution and
thereVire the High Court was fully justified in throwing out the petition
at the threshold: ·Mr. Lokur directed a frontal ·attack drawing sustenance from the decision of Delhi High Court that JCAR being a
· Society registered under the Societies Registration Ac.t and being
. neither a State ncrother authority within t~e tontempla·ticn of.Art. 12
•
nor an instrumentality of the State, writ jurisdiction of the
High
Court cannot .be ,invoked against it. Sabhajit Tewary y. Union of
: India & Ors. <ll was the sheet anchor of M;. Lokur's extensive sub-.
missions because in.· that case a Constitution Bench presided over
'-~-.
c
D
.E
F
G
by· the then Chief Justice ruled that the Council of Scientific and ·
lndi1strial Research, a&J_ciety registered mider theSccieties Registra:
lion Act, was neither a ST!\te .nor other auothrity within the contemplation ·or Art. 12 and · therefore, the writ petition was ·held not to he :
maintainable against ii. And even though this matter had became
·part-heard .in 1980 and the ·hearing was resumed in 1983 before a
different Bench, the vigour of the sustained attack was not the leasi
dimmed even "though the law expanding the width and ambit of the
expression 'State·· ·and 'other .. a.thuority' in ..<rt. 12 had taken strides
culminating in Ajay Hasia ~tc. v. Khalid Mujib' Sehrarardi & Ors.
(
etc, <2>
And Mi. Lokur continued his submission with unabated fury
even though the learned Solicitor General Shri K. Parasharai:t appearing for the Union of India fairly conceded that in view of the circumstances disdosed in the case and the tre.nd of the decsioris, it is. ~
· not possible to contend that ICAR and its affiliates JVRI and JAR!
walud riot be other authority.being instrumentalities of the Siate and
· . against which writ jurisdiction could be invoked .
•
A very brief resume of the history of ICAR commencing from
its initial set up and its development into its· present position would
show that as a matter of form, it .is a· society registered under the
Societies, Registration Act but substantially when set up it was an
adjunct ofthe ·Government of India and has not ·unde.rgone. any noteworthy change .. On the advent of the· provincial a'!tonomy under
the Government of India Act, 1919, 'agriculture' and 'miimal lmsbandry' .ca1~e under the heading 'transferred sUdject' with the result
that they came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pre v)ncial
Goyern~ent · Development ·or agriculture and research in agriculture
H
co [1975) 3 s.c.R. 616.
(2) [19811 2 S.C.R. 79.
-
'
).
'
·-
•
•
-
-
-
P. K. IYBR v. UNION (Desai,.J.)
213
became the_
responsibility of the Provincial Government. Even
then ·a Royal Commission· on agriculture was constituted in 1926
to enquire into the agricultural set up and the rural economy of the
· country a.nd to make recommendations to consider what firm steps
. -are necessary to be tal<en by the Central Government in this behalf!
The Commission in its· report recommended the setting-up of Imperial
.