MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus GOPINATH GUNDACHAR CHAR

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 06-10-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 em-
ployee 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 Cor-
wration 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 ad-
mittedly 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:a-
tions are framed or directions are given, the Corp0ration "nay appoint F 
such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient per-
formance 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 Corpo-
ration. 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 Execu-
tive 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 perfor-
mance 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.