Back
1992 Supreme(AP) 25
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.BHASKARA RAO
M.Thaha w/o A.Thaha - Appellant
Versus
Director General, National Institute of rural Development, Rajendra Nagar - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-92
A body can be considered a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India if it is created by a statute or incorporated under law, enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected, there is deep and pervasive State control, the functions of the body are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, and the body is financed to a large extent by the Government.
Headnote:
ARTICLE 226 - WRIT JURISDICTION - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NIRD) - WHETHER A STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WHETHER BYE-LAWS FRAMED BY NIRD HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW - WHETHER THE ACTION OF NIRD IN VIOLATION OF THE BYE-LAWS IS AMENABLE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW - WHETHER THE SELECTION OF DIRECTORS MADE BY NIRD IS VALID - WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P. 13270/89 ON DEPUTATION IS VALID - WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P. 4812/90 IS VALID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are employees of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD), challenged the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondents as Directors made by NIRD on various grounds. The main contention of the petitioners was that the NIRD is not a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondents is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners also contended that the bye-laws framed by NIRD have the force of law and the action of NIRD in violation of the bye-laws is illegal and unsustainable. Further, the petitioners contended that the selection of the 3rd respondents was not made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the bye-laws and that the 3rd respondents did not have the requisite qualifications and experience for the posts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the NIRD is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondents is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the bye-laws framed by NIRD have the force of law and the action of NIRD in violation of the bye-laws is illegal and unsustainable. However, the Court found that the selection of the 3rd respondents was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the bye-laws and that the 3rd respondents had the requisite qualifications and experience for the posts. Therefore, the Court dismissed both the writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the NIRD is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the bye-laws framed by NIRD have the force of law? 3. Whether the action of NIRD in violation of the bye-laws is amenable to judicial review? 4. Whether the selection of the 3rd respondents was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the bye-laws? 5. Whether the 3rd respondents had the requisite qualifications and experience for the posts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In order to determine whether a body is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Court considered the following factors: - Whether the body was created by a statute or incorporated under law. - Whether the body enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. - Whether there is deep and pervasive State control. - Whether the functions of the body are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. - Whether the body is financed to a large extent by the Government. 2. The Court held that the NIRD is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is fully supported and financed by the Government of India, and its main function is oriented towards Rural Development, a governmental function. 3. The Court held that the bye-laws framed by NIRD have the force of law because they were made and adopted by the General Council of NIRD as per the powers conferred by Rule X (vii) of the NIRD Rules, they have received the approval of the Government of India, and they lay down the procedure for appointment of staff, the terms and tenure of appointments, emoluments, terms and conditions governing scholarships, rules of conduct and other conditions of service of the staff of the Institute. 4. The Court held that the action of NIRD in violation of the bye-laws is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the NIRD is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the bye-laws have the force of law.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions assail the selection and appointment of Dr. Tarun Bikar Lahiri and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh (respondents 3 in both the writ petitions) as Directors made by the National Institute of Rural development (hereinafter referred to as nird ) on different grounds. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, I intend to first dispose of the preliminary objection taken by Mr. V. V. S. Rao, the learned counsel for NIRD, that this Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the instant writ petitions as NIRD is not a state within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 of the Constitution reads:"12. Definition. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. "in this background of the definition, the contention of Mr. V. Venkataramanaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that NIRD is an instrumentality of the a State falling within the expression "other authorities occurring in the definition extracted supra.
( 2 ) THE definition of the term the State furnished at the top of Part-III coveting Fundamental rights is meant to indicate the authorities and instrumentalities functioning within or beyond the territories of India that shall act in conformity with the provisions of Part-III of the Constitution. The fundamental rights listed in Part-in of the Constitution are immune from invasion or infringement by any action of the State as defined therein. Inasmuch as ordinary law provides for protection against private action, the Constitution has provided for sufficient protection of the fundamental rights against the might of the State. The whole object of Part-in of the Constitution, in the words of Patanjali Sastri, CJ. , is to provide protection for the freedoms and rights mentioned therein against arbitrary invasion by the State. Now, the argument of Mr. V. V. S. Rao is that the impugned actions in these writ petitions being by a body not falling within the definition of State as per Article 12, they amount to private actions not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) TO examine whether the expression other authorities occurring in the definition covers NIRD, it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Smt. Ujjambai vs. State of U. P. and Electricity Board, Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal has rejected the interpretation of the expression other authorities in the background of the doctrine Ejusdem Generis with Government or Legislature on the ground that in Article 12 there is no common genus running through the bodies named therein nor the bodies named could be placed in one single category. Accordingly the Supreme Court held that other authorities cannot be restricted to those exercising governmental or sovereign functions only.
( 4 ) THE earliest decision on the subject as regards the interpretation of the term other authorities rendered by the Supreme Court is the one in Electricity board, Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal. The view taken by the Supreme Court was that other authorities would include all authorities created by the constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law. The Supreme court also held that other authorities need not necessarily engage themselves in performing governmental or sovereign functions since under Article 298 state can also carry on trade or business. Accordingly it held that such bodies as are created for the purpose of promoting the educational and economic interests of the. people also come within the purview of other authorities . This decision has virtually over-ruled the earlier view that university is not a state within the meaning of Art. 12 since it does not render
