LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. versus V.K. SODHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 14-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
V.K. SODHI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 2007 
[P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 12 and 226-State Council of Education, Research and Training 
(SCERT)-Held: Is not 'State' or other authority within the meaning of C 
Article 12 and normally not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under 
Article 226-Therefore, there is no reason to issue any writ or direction to 
authorities of GNCT, Delhi with regard to pension, gratuity, general provident 
fund etc. to the employees concerned-State Council of Education, Research 
and Training Rules and Regulations-Regulation 67. 
D 
The respondent-employees of the State Council of Education Research 
and Training (SCERT), an institution set up to assist the State Government 
of Delhi in the matter of promoting education within the State, filed a writ 
petition before the High Court praying for a writ or direction to the appellants, 
inter alia, to extend the benefits of pension, gratuity and general provident E 
fund on retirement in favour of the writ petitioners. The appellants contended 
before the High Court that SCERT was not "State" within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it was merely a society registered 
under the Societies Registration Act, that it mainly relied on the grant by 
the Government for the purpose of achieving its objects, was formed without 
the sanction or approval of the State Government and was not in a position to F 
spend any part of the grant by way of additional benefits to its employees. The 
High Court held that SCERT was 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of 
the Constitution oflndia and the appellants were bound to implement the policy 
decision ofSCERT as reflected in Regulation 67. Aggrieved, the Lt Governor 
of Delhi and others filed CA No. 3272 of 2003/SCERT. Later SCERT filed G 
CA No. 8132 of2003 challenging the subsequent direction of the High Court 
given in another writ petition. 
Th~ appellants, besides reiterating the plea raised before the High Court 
1027 
H 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A that SCERT was not 'State', submitted that Regulation 67 ofSCERT Rules 
and Regulations which provided that the terms and tenure of service of the 
academic staff of the Council would remain the same as available for the 
academic staff of NCERT was amended by Notification dated 7.12.1999 
retrospectively to the effect that the terms and tenure of service of academic 
and other staff of the Council should remain the same as avaihible for the 
B academic and other staff of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. It 
was also brought to the notice of the Court that the unamended Regulation 
67 had never been implemented in respect of any of its employees and there 
was no case of any discrimination in implementation of that Regulation. 
>' 
-..... 
C 
On the question whether in the context of the function entrusted to 
SCERT, the rules and bye-laws that govern it and financial position enjoyed 
by it, SCERT can be said to be financially, functionally and administratively 
dominated by or under the control of the Government 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.l. SCERT is not a State or other authorty within the meaning 
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court has not independently 
discussed the relevant rules governing the functioning and administration of 
SCERT. [Para 141 (1037-F, GJ 
E 
1.2. There is no simple litmus test, to determine whether an entity is 
'state' .or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution 
of India. Various facets of the foundation and the working of the entity would 
be rele\'.ant in determining the question in the context of the duties entrusted 
to it or taken up by it for per.formance. In view of the decision in Pradeep 
Kumar Biswas* each case has to be considered with reference to the facts 
F available for determining whether the body concerned is 'State' or other 
authority wit.hin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. So 
considered, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over the 
working of SCERT. It does not have financial control in the sense that once 
the finances are made available to SCERT, the administration of those 
G finances is left to SCERT and there is no further governmental control. After 
all the very formation of an independent society under the Societies 
Registration Act would
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.