B. S. MINHAS versus INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 19-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.--t· 
395 
' 
B. S. MINHAS 
v. 
INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE & ORS. 
·. 
October 19; 1983 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, AND R.B.' MISRA JJ]' 
• 
Constitution of India. Articles 12 and 32. 
Indian Statistical lnstiture-.:..A society regbtered under the' Societies 
Registration Act-Financed and ~ontrolled by Central 
~overnment-Whethtr 
'other authority' .within meaning of Article 12-Whether '1me1table 
to writ 
jurisdic~ion under Article 32. 
Civil Service 
Indian Statistical lnstilute-Director-'vaCancy of-Bye law NO. · 2 of 
Institute require vpcancy to be publicised before recruitment-Whether obligatory 
for institute to follow the bye-law-No minute& · of- s'eleclion co'mmittee 
maintained or circulated amongst members-Selection wh~ther valid. 
Indian Statistical Institute Act 1959 Ss 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 an4 12. 
. 
. 
. l 
. 
Indian Statistical Tnstitute-lnstitute of National Importance-Whether 
•other authority' within the meaning of Article 12,ofthe Constitutioii. 
The InJian Statistical Institute was regisJered under . the . Societi~ 
Registration Act, and go,•erned by the Indian Statistical Institute. Act, 1959. 
Jts control completely vested in the Union. of India, respondent no. 5 in the 
appeal. 
The Institute had been declared as an 'Institute of National 
Importance. 
. 
·~ 
, The chief executive body of_ the Institute was the Council,. .responden,_t 
no. 2 which consited of 25 members of whom three were representatives of the 
·~ntral Government. The Council-was headed by a chaifman whO was·~lected. 
In Orde~ to _discharge the adm_inistratiVe and acacJcmic responS~bilitf Or the 
Instituti:: a Director was appOinted by the Council. Respondellt Do. 4 was 
ap.pointt~ as_ a Director. 
· 
· 
·· · 
· · ,. 
A 
B 
F 
'I'Jle petitioner in his Writ Petition cballenieci the appointment of 
H 
respondent no. 4 on the ground that he "'.as a person of much hiaher academic 
-and other accomplishments and far superior iQ the said respondent. 
-
. -
.. 
. 
. 
. . ,..· .. 
.&· 
B 
·o 
D 
E 
a 
B 
396. 
~UPamm COURT REPORTS 
[ 1984) r s.c.a. 
In the w'rit Petition it was contended : (i) Bye.Jaw' 2 expressly requires 
that the vacancy of DireCtorship should be s·uitably publicised but 'in the 
present case no Publicity whatsoe~er was given to the vacancy Or Directorship. 
Publicity was neces~ary if the appointment was . to be .fair and free. from 
partiality· and' that'many were not aware of the vacancy of (he post of Director 
tiIJ the actual order of appointment was made. (ii) He· was eoin·ently suitable 
for being appc)inted to the post in view of the.various contributions in ~he field 
of his work and the active p_art piayed by him in resolving the administrative 
problems of the Institute, and (Hi) no bio~data or information wa~ placed before 
the Council which under the bye-laws was the appointing authority to enable 
the members to gauge the comP,arative. suitability of various candidates . 
• 
The petition was resisted on behalf. of respnndent Nos. l · and 2 by 
contending : (i) the petition is ~ot maintainable under Article 32 of the 
Constitution as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not •s.tate' or •other authority' 
within the meaning. of Art. '12 of ihe Constitutibn. (ii) Even assumiIJg that there 
has been a violation of bye-law 2 no writ can lie to correct the same as the 
alleged bye-law has no statutory basis- inasmuch as the Institute has been 
dectafed as an •Institotion of National Importance', the bye-laws not being 
... statutory the respondents are uhder no obligation to _observe lhe procedure 
laid down therein, and (iii) the petitioner was duly and ,properly considered for 
selection to. the post. 
Allowing the writ petition, 
HELD : (i) The order o.f appointment dated· August 3, 1979 of 
Respondent No. 4 as the Director of Respondent No. l is quashed- and set 
aside. Before Respondent ~o .. 'l proceeds to select· a new Di.rector, it Will 
comply with the requirement of bye-law 2 by giving suitable public_ity to the • 
yaca:ncy in tfle a:ffice of Director. [413 F] 
"' 
(ii) There can be no doubt that rc!lipondent No. 2 is an 'authority' within 
the meaning: of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition 
filed by the petitioner is competent and maintainable. [409 G) • 
In the ·instant case, the money required for fundii:;ig; the lnsti~ute is 
provided entirely by the Ce~tral 9overnment and even if ·any other moneys 
are to "be' received by the Institute it can be donC only V(ith the approval of the 
Cen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.