SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 385

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, LEH, LADAKH (J & K)
Versus
MAKHAN LAL MATTOO AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal No. 3492 of 1990, decided on July 25,1990
Advocates appeared :
N.S. Mathur, Ramesh C. Pathak, G. Venkatesh Rao and Baby Lal, Advocates, for the Appellant;
E.C. Agarwala, Ms Purnima Bhatt, V.K. Pandita, and Atul Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Advocates:
Atul Sharma, BABY LAL, E.C.AGARWAL, G.VENKATESWARA RAO, N.S.MATHUR, PURNIMA BHATT KAK, R.C.PATHAK, V.K.PANDITA

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 – Employment and Service matter - post of Administrative Officer - Selection committee - Academic Qualification - Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act - Respondent 1 who was functioning as Administrative Officer, was given additional charge of post of Principal by an order issued by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi - Board of Management in its meeting held decided that apart from the qualifications prescribed under Rules, person selected for post of Principal should have a thorough academic background in Buddhist philosophy - Held, The qualifications forpost of Principal of the School stood validly revised by the amendment of Rules in August 1978 - Since respondent 1 does not possess the revised qualifications, he is not eligible to be considered for the said post - It is no doubt that High Court has mentioned that it was admitted by the counsel for the management that Mattoo possessed requisite qualifications for post but we do not understand how in the face of categoric affidavit of Dr Kapila Vatsyayan such a statement could be made before High Court - Therefore, hold that qualifications/experience for post of Principal were validly revised by amending the Rules in August 1978 - Advertisement issued on January 5, 1982 was in accordance with the Rules and the High Court was not justified in quashing same – Appeal allowed.

Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.- Special leave granted.

2. The School of Buddhist Philosophy, Leh (hereinafter called the School) is an affiliate institution of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Banaras. The management of the School is in the hands of a society called Central Institute of Buddhist Studies, Leh which is registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act. Appointments to various posts in the School are regulated by the rules framed by the Board of Management in the year 1973. The academic and other qualifications for the post of Principal under the rules, are as under:

"Academic Qualification.- At least Masters Degree in Humanities or Social Sciences, with knowledge of rules and regulations, procedures and accounts.

Experience.- Minimum experience of 7 years, out of which at least 2 years should be in administration such as Administrative Assistant and not less than 3 years in teaching in Higher Secondary and/or Degree classes."

The qualifications for the post of Administrative Officer under the 1973 rules are identical.

3. M.L. Mattoo (respondent 1), who was functioning as the Administrative Officer, was given the additional charge of the post of Principal by an order dated March 26, 1973 issued by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

4. The Board of Management in its meeting held on August 22, 1978 decided that apart from the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, the person selected for the post of Principal should have a thorough academic background in Buddhist philosophy. Pursuant to the said decision the qualifications/experience for the post of Principal prescribed under the Rules were revised as under :

"Essential:

(a) A consistently good academic record possessing eminent scholarship in Buddhist Philosophy as a subject of specialisation at MA or Doctoral level.

Or

Acharya Degree with research experience to Buddhist Philosophy or equivalent.

Or

An equivalent degree of traditional monastic education in Buddhism.

(b) Evidence of research work and/or public work in the field. Desirable :

(a) 5 years teaching experience in Buddhist Philosophy and allied subject at the degree level.

(b) 5 years of administrative experience."

5. The Board of Management constituted a selection committee to appoint a suitable person as Principal of the School. By an order dated January 9, 1979 one Shri Tashi Paljor, who fulfilled the revised qualifications, was appointed as Principal of the School. Aggrieved by the said appointment M.L. Mattoo filed Civil Writ Petition No. 256 of 1979 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that he was removed from the additional charge without affording an opportunity of hearing to him and further that he was not considered by the selection committee. He contended that selection was liable to be quashed being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was resisted by the management on the ground that it was not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition was not competent. At the hearing of the writ petition the counsel for the management conceded that the society was a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition could not be dismissed on that ground. The High Court rejected the contention of M.L. Mattoo that he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing or Article 311 was attracted. The High Court, however, allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not considered for the post of Principal and as such his right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India stood infringed. The operative part of the High Court judgment is as under :

"Mr V.K. Gupta has on the authority of Ajay Hasia case{Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722} frankly conceded that the society being an instrumentality or agency of Government of India, was State for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution, as such, the petitioner had















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top