Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A. N. RAY, S. K. MUKHERJEE
D. G. OF HEALTH SERVICES - Appellant
Versus
BIKASH CHATTERJEE - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 28 Of 1968
Decided On : NOVEMBER 11, 1968
WRIT - Against Council of Scientific and Industrial Research - Not Justiciable - Council Not a Public Body - Fundamental Rules - Not Binding on Council - Absorption in Council's Service - Disputed Question of Fact - Reversion to Substantive Post - Not Reduction in Rank - Fundamental Rule 113 - Not Violated - Promotion - No Compulsive Element - Chances of Promotion - Not Established.
Fact of the Case:
Bikash Chatterjee, an animal caretaker at the Central Drugs Laboratory, was transferred to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 1952. In 1963, the CSIR ordered Chatterjee to revert to the Drugs Laboratory. Chatterjee challenged this order, arguing that he had been permanently absorbed into the CSIR and that the reversion violated his rights under Article 311 of the Constitution and Fundamental Rule 113.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the CSIR was not a public body and, therefore, not subject to writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also held that the Fundamental Rules were not binding on the CSIR and that Chatterjee had not been permanently absorbed into the CSIR's service. The court further held that the reversion to Chatterjee's substantive post did not amount to a reduction in rank and did not violate Fundamental Rule 113. The court also held that there was no compulsive element in promotion and that Chatterjee had not established that he had any chances of promotion.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ can be issued against the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)? 2. Whether the CSIR is bound by the Fundamental Rules? 3. Whether Bikash Chatterjee was permanently absorbed into the CSIR's service? 4. Whether the reversion of Chatterjee to his substantive post amounted to a reduction in rank? 5. Whether Fundamental Rule 113 was violated by the reversion? 6. Whether there was a compulsive element in promotion? 7. Whether Chatterjee had established that he had any chances of promotion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ cannot be issued against the CSIR because it is not a public body. 2. The CSIR is not bound by the Fundamental Rules because it is not a government body. 3. The question of whether Chatterjee was permanently absorbed into the CSIR's service is a disputed question of fact that was not raised in the trial court. 4. The reversion of Chatterjee to his substantive post did not amount to a reduction in rank because he had a lien on that post and was not entitled to the officiating post he held before his transfer to the CSIR. 5. Fundamental Rule 113 was not violated by the reversion because it does not require a government servant to be promoted upon returning from foreign service. 6. There is no compulsive element in promotion. 7. Chatterjee did not establish that he had any chances of promotion because he was not qualified for any of the posts that were filled by recruitment or promotion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Chatterjee's appeal against the CSIR and upheld the discharge of the rule against the Drugs Laboratory.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals were heard one after another.
( 2 ) THESE two appeals are from the judgment and order of Mitra, J. dated 2 August, 1966.
( 3 ) IN appeal No. 28 of 1968 the appellant is Bikash Chatterjee and in appeal No. 37 of 1967 the appellants are Director General of Health Services. Director, Central Drugs Laboratory and the Union of India. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is the respondent in both the appeals. For the sake of brevity the appellants in appeal No. 37 of 1967 will be referred to as the Drugs Laboratory and the respondent Council of Scientific and Industrial Research will be referred to as the Council, and the appellant in appeal No. 28 of 1968 will be referred to as Chatterjee.
( 4 ) CHATTERJEE filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the orders dated 18 July. 1963, 30 July. 1963. 3 August. 1963 and 9 August, 1963 should not be quashed and why a writ of Mandamus should not go to cancel the said orders and why the Drugs Laboratory would not cancel the orders dated 30 July. 1963 and 9 August, 1963 directing Chatterjee to join the post of animal care-taker and why the Drugs Laboratory would not offer to Chatterjee the upper division post to which he was entitled in law, namely the post of Animal Technician or upper division clerk in the Central Drugs Laboratory.
( 5 ) THE case of Chatterjee in short is as follows. In April, 1937 he was appointed as Laboratory Attendant at Biochemical Laboratory under the Ministry of Health at a salary of Rs. 20/- per month. The laboratory thereafter came to be known as the Central Drugs Laboratory. In 1943 Chatterjee was given a permanent appointment at the said Drugs Laboratory as animal care-taker. Between 1946 and 1951 Chatterjee officiated in the "higher post" of store clerk at the Drugs Laboratory. Sometime in 1951 Chatterjee applied for the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant, Central Drugs Research Institute, Lucknow under the Council. From 1952 Chatterjee worked at the Central Drugs Research Institute at Lucknow. In 1960 Chatterjee applied for the post of Junior Technical Assistant at the Central Drugs Research Institute which was under the Council. Chatterjee was selected to the post. Sometime in the month of March, 1961 Chatterjee made an application for permanent transfer of his service and/or for permanent absorption in the service of the Council. In paragraphs 10 to 21 Chatterjee alleges that he was completely absorbed in the service of the Council and he was treated in every respect in permanent employment of the Council. In the month of July, 1963 Chatterjee received a letter dated 18 July 1963 from the Administrative Officer, Indian Institute for Bio-chemistry informing Chatterjee that it had been decided by the Council that Chatterjee should revert to the Drug Laboratory with effect from 22 July, 1963. On August 3, 1963 the Council informed Chatterjee that Chatterjee stood reverted to the Drugs Laboratory.
( 6 ) CHATTERJEE impeaches 18 July, 1963 and 3 August, 1963 orders of the Council as being in excess of the jurisdiction of the Council.
( 7 ) ON 30 July, 1963 the Director of Drugs Laboratory informed Chatterjee that Chatterjee should report as animal care-taker in Drugs Laboratory on 24 August, 1963. On 9 August, 1963 the Drugs Controller made an order that Chatterjee should report for duties from August 24, 1963. Chatterjee impeaches the two orders dated 30 July, 1963 and 9 August, 1963 of the Drugs Laboratory as illegal and in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. The further case of Chatterjee is that the orders directing Chatterjee to join the post of animal care-taker would result in loss or forfeiture of higher emoluments which Chatterjee was receiving prior to the said orders. It is also alleged that as a result of the orders Chatterjee would lose seniority and it would result in the demotion of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
