TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether ICAR and its affiliates were "other authority" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and amenable to writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petitioners holding professorships in IVRI were entitled to the revised pay scale without being subjected to fresh selection; (iii) whether the selection of Dr. S.L. Mehta as Senior Biochemist was valid and what relief, if any, followed for Dr. Y.P. Gupta; and (iv) whether ASRB could prescribe minimum qualifying marks in viva voce when the governing rules provided for selection on aggregate marks.
Issue (i): Whether ICAR and its affiliates were "other authority" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: ICAR was found to have originated as a government department, continued as an attached office, remained wholly financed and controlled by the Government, and functioned through a governing structure dominated by governmental nominees. Its rules, finances, appointments, audit, and administration were subject to pervasive governmental control. On these features, the body was held to be an instrumentality of the State and not a mere private society.
Conclusion: Yes. ICAR and its affiliates were held to be "other authority" within Article 12 and writ jurisdiction was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners holding professorships in IVRI were entitled to the revised pay scale without being subjected to fresh selection.
Analysis: The revised scale attached to the post of Professor was sanctioned for the post itself, not for a new entrant only. The petitioners were already holding the same posts when the revised scale was introduced, and the attempt to make them compete afresh for posts they already held was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The principle of equal pay for equal work was applied to remove unequal treatment between incumbents doing the same work under the same employer.
Conclusion: Yes. The petitioners were entitled to the revised scale from the date it was granted to similarly placed Professors in sister disciplines.
Issue (iii): Whether the selection of Dr. S.L. Mehta as Senior Biochemist was valid and what relief, if any, followed for Dr. Y.P. Gupta.
Analysis: The selection was found unsustainable because the candidate selected did not satisfy the essential experience qualification even after the attempted amplification of qualifications, and no valid power to relax the experience requirement was shown. The Court treated the process as contrary to the prescribed norms. Since the post had later been abolished, setting aside the appointment alone would not fully redress the consequences; Dr. Gupta had also suffered in seniority and pay. Separately, the record showed that Dr. Gupta had been unfairly treated in relation to membership of the postgraduate faculty, and the respondent's earlier statement to consider taking him back was enforced.
Conclusion: The selection of Dr. S.L. Mehta was held invalid; Dr. Y.P. Gupta was entitled to consequential pay protection and reinstatement of faculty membership as directed.
Issue (iv): Whether ASRB could prescribe minimum qualifying marks in viva voce when the governing rules provided for selection on aggregate marks.
Analysis: The relevant rules permitted minimum marks only for the written examination to decide eligibility for viva voce, and then required the merit list to be prepared according to aggregate marks finally awarded. Introducing a minimum qualifying mark for viva voce was held to be an impermissible additional requirement, amounting in substance to an unauthorized modification of the rules. However, in view of the passage of time and the fact that vacancies remained unfilled, the Court declined to unsettle the entire selection and instead directed prospective reconsideration of the unfilled vacancies on the proper aggregate-mark basis.
Conclusion: No. ASRB had no authority to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for viva voce contrary to the rules; only prospective corrective relief was granted.
Final Conclusion: The common judgment granted substantive relief to the petitioners and appellants by recognizing writ maintainability against ICAR, enforcing equal treatment in pay and service conditions, invalidating the impugned selection process where it violated the governing norms, and directing reconsideration or consequential relief where the circumstances so required.
Ratio Decidendi: A body that is government-created, government-controlled, and government-financed, with pervasive public control over its administration and appointments, is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12; further, selection authorities cannot add eligibility conditions or qualification thresholds not authorized by the governing rules.
TaxTMI 
