TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SCERT not a 'State' under Article 12: Autonomy upheld over Regulation 67 implementation</h1> <h3>LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS Versus VK. SODHI & ORS</h3> LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS Versus VK. SODHI & ORS - 2007 AIR 2885 Issues Involved:1. Whether the State Council of Education, Research and Training (SCERT) is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the implementation of Regulation 67 as it stood prior to its amendment.3. Financial implications of implementing the High Court's directions on SCERT.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether SCERT is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India:The Supreme Court examined whether SCERT qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 by considering the financial, functional, and administrative control of the government over SCERT. The court referred to the decision in *Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors.* [(2002) 5 S.C.C. 111], which emphasized that the control must be pervasive and particular to the body in question. The court noted that SCERT, like NCERT, is an autonomous body with its own Executive Committee and is not subservient to the government. The financial control by the government is limited to the proper utilization of grants, and the administration of these finances is left to SCERT. Thus, the court concluded that SCERT does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12, reversing the High Court's finding.2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the implementation of Regulation 67 as it stood prior to its amendment:The High Court directed SCERT to implement Regulation 67 as it existed before its amendment, despite the regulation being amended retrospectively. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not independently discuss the relevant rules governing SCERT's functioning and administration. The court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the cumulative facts and the financial implications of such a direction. Since SCERT is not a 'State' under Article 12, the Supreme Court held that it is unnecessary to delve into the validity of the amendment of Regulation 67 or its non-implementation.3. Financial implications of implementing the High Court's directions on SCERT:The Supreme Court highlighted the financial constraints faced by SCERT, noting that a significant portion of its grant from the government would be consumed by salaries and allowances if the High Court's directions were implemented. This would defeat the very purpose of SCERT, which is to coordinate and promote education in the state. The court stressed that in welfare states, the interests of society at large should prevail over the rights of employees, especially in the field of education. The court concluded that it is essential to consider the financial implications and the broader societal interests before issuing any such directions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's directions, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The court held that SCERT is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and that the High Court's directions could not be sustained due to the financial implications and the broader interests of society.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
