B.S.

Minhas vs Indian Statistical Institute & Ors

MANU/SC/0320/1983

By Aditya Shenoy
21012441

Facts

Shri. B. P. Adhikari (Respondent no. 4) was appointed as the Director of the

Indian Statistical Institute (Institute) by an order dated 3 rd August, 1979.
The appointment order was challenged by the petitioner on various grounds.

The Institute receives grants from the Central Government and the chief
executive body of the Institute is the Council consisting of 25 members
including 3 from the Central Government. The Council is headed by the
Chairman who is elected by the members of the Council from a list of names
proposed by the President or the Council governed by the bye-laws of the
Institute.

The various posts in the Institute are Professors to carry out teaching and
research works, then of a Research Professor and finally a Distinguished
Scientist. A Director is appointed to carry out the administrative and
academic responsibilities of the Institute.

In a meeting of the Council on 16th April, 1979, Shri. P. N. Haksar

(Respondent No. 3), Chairman of the Council raised the issue about the
absence of the then Director, Prof. G. Kallianpur and his inability to dedicate
to the Institute on a full time basis. The Council insisted on the Professor
continuing his term as the Director on a whole time basis and informed him
of the same. The Council was also authorised to accept the resignation and
constituted a Selection Committee of 5 members including the Chairman, in
case the professor insisted on resigning.

On 3rd August, 1979, the Chairman informed the Council of the Professor’s
resignation and informed that the Selection Committee from the previous
meeting had unanimously recommended the appointment of Respondent
No. 4 as the Director of the Institute. The Council approved the
recommendation of the Committee and the terms of appointment of
Respondent No. 4 was that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3000 in the
position as a Distinguished Scientist.

The Petitioner challenged this appointment on the fact that he was not
considered for the post of Director even though the Petitioner’s achievements
were superior to that of the respondent No. 4. The Petitioner had also
informed the Chairman and other members of the Council regarding the
arbitrary procedure in the appointment of the Director including the failure
of the Council to advertise such a vacancy.

The Institute is governed by its Memorandum, Regulations and bye-laws in

the conduct of its affairs. Bye-law 2 provides the procedure for the
appointment of a Director. It reads as follows,

“The appointment of the Director shall be made by the Council on the

recommendation made by a Selection Committee consisting of:
(i) Chairman of the Council (as Chairman) ,
(ii) Two experts approved by the Council.
Before recruitment the Vacancy for Directorship Should be suitably
publicised.”

Issues

Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Director of the

Institute is valid?

Whether the Institute comes under the ambit of “State” in Art. 12 of the
Constitution?

Whether the Institute and the chief executive body is required to follow the
bye-laws, regulations and memorandum?

Rules
Bye-law 2 of the Indian Statistical Institute

Art. 12 & 32 of the Constitution

Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., MANU/SC/0498/1980

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,

MANU/SC/0048/197

Holding

The Writ remedy under Art. 32 is permitted only against the State. The State
is defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution. It includes the Central Government
and the Parliament and all the State Legislature and all local or other
authorities within the territory of India and within the control of the Indian
Government. Since the Institute is under the control of the Central
Government, receiving its grants from the Government and even members
representing the Central Government in the chief executive body, it is clear
that the Institute comes under the ambit of State in Art. 12.

“If the Government acting through its officers is subject to certain

constitutional limitations, it must follow a fortiori that the Government
acting through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation should equally
be subject to the same limitations. If. such a corporation were to be free
from the basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights, it would lead to
considerable erosion of the efficiency of the fundamental Rights, for in that
event the government would be enabled to over-ride the Fundamental Rights
by adopting the stratagem of carrying out its functions through the
instrumentality or agency of a corporation, while retaining control over it.” 1

Secondly, even though the bye-laws are not statutory, the Institute was
required to comply with it. There has been no denial of the fact that the
Institute failed to publicly advertise the vacancy. Thus, according to Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India 2, the executive

1
Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., MANU/SC/0498/1980.
2
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, MANU/SC/0048/197.
authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its
actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on
pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was laid down
Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Seton 3 and was applied in India in A.S.
Ahluwalia v. Punjab4.

The court held that the Institute was to follow the bye-laws to avoid
arbitrariness and the appointment order of the Respondent No. 4 was set
aside and quashed. It was also held that the actions taken by the
Respondent No. 4 would not invalidated nor will it attract any liability or
excess remuneration from Respondent No. 4.

Analysis

The Institute and the Council failed to advertise the vacancy in any way.
This was a violation of bye-law 2 of the Institute which governs the
appointment of Directors. The bye-laws not being statutory does not
necessarily mean non-compliance with it is excused. It exists to ensures
transparency, fair play and would also enlarge the pool of candidates for the
vacant position. This arbitrary action by the Council hurt the chances of the
Petitioner and other candidates who were far more superior in achievements
and recognition than Respondent No. 4. The Council members were also not
provided with the bio-data of the various candidates nor were other facts
related to the candidates provided. The contention of the Respondent that
the Petitioner was considered for the vacancy and was not selected by the
Selection Committee expresses the arbitrary and partial process in the
appointment of the Director. The principle of Justice Frankfurter is a settled
rule of law with a famous quote, “He that takes up the procedural sword
shall perish with the sword”. The Court was right in not determining the
superior of the bio-data or achievements of both the petitioner and
Respondent No. 4 since it was an administrative action and not one that
needed the judiciary to be involved.

3
Viteralli v. Seton, 359 U.S 535 (1959).
4
A.S. Ahluwalia v. Punjab MANU/SC/0363/1974.
Conclusion

The Petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 4 to the post

of Director of the Institute on grounds that it violated bye-law 2 of the
Institute. The Respondent argued that a suit does not lie since the Institute
is not a State under Art. 12 of the Constitution. The Court held that the
Institute was a State according to Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
& Ors.

To the Respondents claim that the bye-laws are not statutory, the Court
applied the well settled principle of administrative law by Justice
Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Seton and held that it was mandatory for the State
bodies to comply with the bye-laws and regulations.