Judgment sc-1984-1-395-413

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D MISRA J. : By the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of Shri B.P. Adhikari, respondent No. 4, as the Director· of the Indian Statistical Institute, respondent No. 1. " . The Indian Statistical Institute is a Society registered under the E Societies Registration Act. It is governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Its control completely vest~ in the Union of India, respondent No. S. It is wholly financed by ~he U nicln of India. All the functions of the Institute are controlled by the Union of India, as is evident from F the various provisions of the Act.· tinder s.8 of the Act the annual ' work programmes of the Institute and the general financial estimates in respect of such work are Settled by committees ·appointed by the Central Government and the Institute obviously cannot undertake any research or training programmes without the approval of the · Central Government. The Institute carries· on an integrated progra•. G mme of training, teaching and research in statistics 'and·' application of statistical techniques in other disciplines. The Institute has been declared as an 'Institution of National Importance' under 'the Act. Under s.4 of the Act'the Institute has been empowered to grant such · degrees and diplomas in statistfos as may be. determined by the ff rnstitute froin time to time. In accordance with the provisions of s.S of the Act the Central Government pays to the Institute in each financi~I year such sums of money as ·the Government considers

ll.S. MINlIAs v. STAftSTICAL INSTITUTE (Misra, II.) 399 necessary by way of grant, loan or otherwise to enable the Institute to discharge efficiently its functions including research, education, train- A ing, project activities and ~tatistical work relating to planning for national development. 'Section 6 of the Act deals with audit of acco.unts of.the Institute by auditors duly qualified to act as. auditors ' of companies under the Companies Act, 1956 and selected by the Central Government after ·consultation with the Comptroller and B Auditor-General. of India. Section 7 of the Act restricts the powers of the Institute to alter, extend or abridge its 'memorandum or rules and regulations and to sell or otherwise dispose of its proiierty acquired with the money specifically provided for such acquisition by the Central. Government excep.t with the previous approval of the Central Government. Section 9 empowers the Central Government c to constitute a committee, i~ter a/ia, for reviewing and evaluating j the work done by the Institut.e and the progress made by it as also · advising Government generally .on any matter which in the opinion of.the Central Government is of importance in connection with the work of the Institute. Section U of the Act empowers the Central D Government to issue directions to the Institute. Section 12 authorises to the Central Go~ernment assume control over the Institute under certain extreme circumstances. . The~lnstitute receives grants from the Central Government to meet almost the entire expenditure on its plan and non-plan activities. E • The chief executive body of the Institute is the Council, respondent No. 2, consisting of 25 members including three representatives of the central Government. The Council is headed by the Chairman elected to that position by the Council by a simple majority from amongst the names prop'cised by the President or members of the .F Council. The election of the Chairman ·or the Council is governed by bye-laws of the Institute.

The initial appointment to carry out research and teaching work is to the post of professor. The next post in the hierarchy is of Research professor and the highest in the hierarchy is the post of G Distinguished scientist. In order to discharge . the administrative and academic responsibilites of the Institute, a Director, with dis• tinctive administrative and academic acumen, is appointed by the Council, respondent No. 2. Shri B. P. Adhikari, respondent No .. 4, B was appointed as the Director of the Institute by an order dated 3rd August, 1979. This order of appointment has been challenged by the p~titioner on various grounds.

400 . SUPREME COllRT REPORTS tt9S4] 1 s.c.a

According fo the petitionei' he was a Distinguished ·Scientist A ·of the Institute at the relevant time. To start with, he was appointed to'the post of Economist in the Indian Statistical Institute on !st . October, 1962 on a monthly pay of Rs. 1000/- in the time scale of Rs. 750-50-1250 plus special pay of Rs: 350/- per month. j Within a year he was promoted as Professor in the time scale of Rs. I000-5p-1500 with a starting pay.of Rs. 1400/- per- month, and B from )st October, 1967 he had been holding the post of Research, Professor in the iime scale of Rs. 1600-100-1900. On 1st January 1968 he was made Officer-in-Charge and entrusted with all technical matters, administration and devolopmental plans relating to planning and regional. survey un'its special training in Delhi. He was giv.en .a C. ·allowance of Rs. 200/- per month oyer and above the pay in the time scale of Resear<;h Professorship. The petitfoner has been respon- sible during the period 1962-1974.for.tb,e creation.and promotion of several new activities of respondent No. 1 in Delhi. Specialised training in National Planning and Econometrics for M. Stat. (2nd Year) trainees of respondent No. 1 was started in Delhi under the D direction of the petitio~er .. lit August 1974 the petitioner \'/as designa- 'ted· as Head of the Delhi Centre and was also appointed to the Insti- tute's Committee of Administratio.ri. On 12th March 1976 he was elevaied to the position of 'Distinguished Scientist' with pay of Rs. •• 3000/- per month plus allowances. The petitioner has· held responsible positipns as Visiting Professor, Fellow, Chairman, . Consultant, :Research Associate, Lecturer etc. in various Universities in India and in. the' United States of Amciica and England. He has been a member of the planning Comll)iSsion, Government of India from · January 1971 to. December, 1973 and he has also been a member ·or the Sixth Finance Commission from July 1972. to October 1973. F The petitioner's work has been acclaimed in. the international as well as national spheres, His work is rated· high as evidenced by the . award .of Dadabhai Nauroji Mefllorial Prize for Economics in 1974 .~ and the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fellowship in 1975. In 1976 , the petitioner had the distinction' of presiding o~er 'the. annual con- G ference of the Indian Society· of .agricultural Economics. People abroad have also conferred recognition on the petitioner..

·' The petitioner's scientific output has•been substantial He has . been active 'in research· and he hits published books of importance. on. H Theory, of International Trade, Scheduling the Operations of Multi- .purpose Reservoirs, Indian· Planning, Planning and the Poor· etc~ Hi.s .contribution~ in the fo,rm.of articles in collaboration with Indian

b,§. MINHAS. v. STATISTICAL INSTITUTE (Misra,, J.) 461 · and foreign economists have been published ·in several journals in India and abroad. One of his co authors, Prof. Arrow is a Nobel Laureate. At present the petitioner is engaged in research on the · following subjects : • 1.· Growth, Poverty and ijasic Need, Development ' Policy iti Sri Lanka, Kerala and Punjab. B

2Copy pinpoint2. lnter-Regiol\al Comparisons of Agricultural Growth and Deve\opment in South Asia in the post-colonial period,.

It is claimed that a comparative evaluation of the achivements c of the.petitioner with those of respondent No. ·4 clearly· shows the superiority of the petitioner .over . respondent 1" o. 4. · Respondent .

·No. 4 had joined the Institute as Profesrnr in tne pay scale of Rs: 750-1250 .. He was appointed in Delhi and was incharge <if .the evening course in Jnteroductory Statistics. He served in Delhi for about a year and th~n went to Calcutta and continued as professor from 1961 to 1974.' in contrast, the petitioner had started at a higher salary of Rs. I OQO p.m. pl.us a special pay of Rs. 350 p.m . . The petitioner had been promoted to the higher post of . Research ·r- Professor on !st October, 1967 in the time. scale of Rs.1600-lQ0- 1900 while respondent No. 4 had been promoted to the post ··of · E Rese.arch Professor only in 1974. At that time respondent Ni:>.4's appointment as Research professor had been objected to as he.had • not published any ·technical paper since his joining the Institute in

1961. The petitioner was senior to respondent No.4 as he bad beeri appointed to the higher post of Research Professor earlier than· . F respondent No. 4. On 12th March 1976 the petitioner was promoted .to the position of 'a Distinguished· Scientist. The petitioner is senior to responde~t No. 4 and all other scientists of the Institute. ' ·~· The petitioner's elevation to the position of Distingusibed. Scienfots came much earlier than that of respondent No. 4. ·The petitioner has been holding the position of Distinguished Scienthi since 12th March G . 1976 :while respondent No. 4 was not a Distinguished Scientist · till his impugned appointment as Director.. . Respondent No.4 . has won no laurels in bis sphere of work and his scientific output has been negligible. Thus, from all accounts the petitioner was m'ore ' H qualified and bis achievements in all spheres were much ·higher than · .those of responden( No. 4 or for the matter .of that, than. those of . any other scienti.st of the Institute: ·

.402 .. SUPRl!Mll CQiJRt RB~RTS Jl984) l S.C.R,

The Institute has an academic council consisting of the follow- ing members among others :

"1. All Professors, Research frofessors and Distinguished Scientists. .t .. 2........-:;,_,.... .

4Copy pinpoint4. •................ .

5Copy pinpoint5. .. .............., c

6Copy pinpoint6. . .................

7Copy pinpoint7. Director (as Chairman of the academic council)."

The Institute is governed by its memcirilndum, regulations and bye-· laws in tl~e conduct Of its affairs. Bye·laiv 2 provides the procedure for the appointment of a ·Director. It reads : ·

"The appQintment of the Director shaii. be made by the ·council on the recommendation made by a Selection Committee consisting ·or · · ·

(i) Chairman of the Council (as Chairman) ,

(ii) Two experts approved by the Council. •

'F Before recruitment the Vacancy for. Directorship should • be suitably public\sed."

In the meeting of the Council; respondent No. 2, on 16th April, 1979, ShriP,N .. Haksar, .respondent No. 3, .the. Chairman,. reported about. the . absence of· the Director· and· other allied matters and · invited the attention of the meinbers·to the facfthat the Director of · the Institute,. Prof, G. Kallianpur is unableto devote full time to the Institute. ; The Council felt that since· the Institute required full time · . attention"'it was desirable that Prof; .Kallianpur should be requested ·'H. to,continue inthe·post of .Director on a whole time basis. ,The Chairman was authorised to. write to. the. Director conveying the . views: of the members and after· getting a . response from Prof. . K-allian.pur, to take further action•. In case Prof: Kallianpur resigned,

ll.S. MINHAS·.... STATJS'rlCAL INSTITUTE (Misra, J.) ·. 403

the Chairman was authorised to ·accep~ his resignation a~d· then to set up a committee consisiing of the followiug . members to select a suitable person for the post of Director :

I 1. Shri P.N. Haksar, C~airman. •

~ 2. . Prof. Bhabatosh Datta.

3. Prof, S.S. Shrikhande.

4. . Prof. M.S. Narasimhan.

5. Dr. R. Rainl!nna.

Subsequently another meeting of respondent No. · 2 was held on 3rd Augnst, 1979 in which the Chairman reported that Prof. Kallian- pur had resigned from the Directorship of the- Institute with effect from 30th June, 1979 and regarding the appointment of the new • Director of the Institute the Chairm~n reported that the selection D .committee, which had been constituted by the Council in its meeting on 16th of April, 1979 had unanimously recommended the appoint- ment of.respondent No. 4 as Director of the Institute, The Council . approved the recommendation of. the selection committee and it also approved the terms and conditions of appointment of respon- dent No. 4 as Director. One of the terms of appointment of respondent No. 4 was that he should be in the substantive position of a 'Distingu1shed Scientist' in the Institute on a monthly salary of Rs. 3000.

When the peti~ioner came to know about the appointment-of respondent No.4 to the post of Director he felt aggrieved and met respondent No.3, the Chairman of the Conncil, Sbri P.N. Haksar and expressed his deep unhappiness at the choice of the new Director of respondent No~!. On getting no favourable response fromres- ~-· pondent No. 3 the:· petitioner· tried to approach the other members of the Council to indicate his resentment at the alleged illegality and "G arJ?itrarinss in the appointment of respondent No.4. The petitioner addressed a letter to Shri N. Srinivasan, Secretary to respondent No2, wherein he referred to the circular dated 4th August, 1979 which he had received ·intimating him about the appointment of respon._ dent No.4 as Director of -respondent No.I. By .this letter the H petitioner pointed out to the Secretary.that the appointing authority had not observed the rules and regulations and bye~iaws of the

404 SliP!UiMI! COURT REPOdS 11984} 1 s.c.ii.. Institute as laid down in the memorandum of association ·and had ·1 also violated .the provisions of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constituti~n. He also pointed out that the vacancy of the p.ost of Director had not 'been publicised anµ. he .being the seniorrnost researcher working • as Distinguished Scientist" of the Institute was not given an oppor- tunity to apply for the same. ·He also pointed out the arbitrary manner B . in which the appointment of respondent No.4 had been made, and he urged the Institute to rectify the error failing which he might be ' obliged to take legal action. The petitioner like.wise addre~sed a letter to another member of the Council, Prof. R.P. Barnbah, who • was a Professor of Mathematic in the Centre for• advanced Studies, Punjab University and wai one of the two Scientists co-opted by the c Cpuncil. The petitioner Jn his letter io Prof. Bambah complained that-with the appointment of respondent No. 4 the Directorship and his simultaneous designation to the post of Distinguished Scientist,· the council had subverted the academic standards of the· Institute and violated the rules and regulations as contained in the,memoran- • D. dum of association as also the variou·s provi<ions of the Constitu- tion. Further, the appointment was arbitrary inasmuch a.sit was without any regard to the· claims of seni.or and better known profes- sional persons. He appealed to Prof. Bamba.h to _upheld the academic integrity of-the Institute and initiate corrective action to rectify the wrong and rescue · the Institute from manipulations of unprincipled people. A similar Jetter was addressed by the petitioner to Shri S.C. Bhattacharya, Director, llose Institute, Calcutta, on 31st August, 1979, another member of the Governing Council of respon~ dent No. I, who was ·one of the four representatives of the Indian National Science Academy. He also wrote fo Prof. P.V. Sukhatme,' Professor of Biometry in Pone, who was '!.!so a distinguished member of the Council. He was awarded the ·Padma Bhushan and also held the post of Director of Statistics Dlvision of Food and Agri- culture Organisation. A Similar letter was addressed by him to Shri Subimal Dutt, President of respondent No. I, reiterating the same· · grievances. Similar let(ers dated 30th and 31st Augu;t, 1979 were G addressed to Dr. K.C. Seal, Director, Central Statistical Organisation . Govenment of India and to Shri Kirpa Narain, Secretary, Depart- inent of Statistics' Government of India. '

It may be pointed out that the members of the selection Com- ·H mittee and the members of the Council are all men• of eminence and highly qualified persons.

'··ll.S. MINHAS v. StATIST!CAL INSTITUTE (Misra, J.) 4oS

+ Pri>f. S.C. Bhattacharya by his letter date<t 5th of September, 1979 replied that the contents of the petitioner's letter were disquiet- ing. He also stated that. respondent No.4 had been identified as a suit-. able person by a group of eminent people .and on the basis 9f advice received from them the Council, respondent No.2, had approved the appointment of respondent No.4. the further stated that .

J he was not tnaking any. further conim•nts in the matter at this stage. He was unaware ofTespondent ·No.4 having been-designated as Distinguished Scientist by the Council in the meeting of 3rd August, 1979. Regarding appointment he further said that no .report of the selection committee had been circulated to, the· members of. the Council but th~ announcement was ·made orally by the Chairman. B

Since it· was difficult to bear every word of the Chairman at the meet- ing he had assumed that the terms of. app,airitment would be ihose ,c ordinarily pq:scribed for the post of Director; •

Prof. Sukhatme in his reply said that lie ·had not realised the grave issues which such· an· .appointment could ·raise. He wanted, however, to assure that there was no intention on their part to subvert D the academic standards of the ln>titute. He assured the petitioner that he would be writing to the Secretary of the Council to know what was the procedure for appointing a person to the post of Distinguished Scientist and whether the same should have been explained to the. Council before adopting the resolution. E

Prof..R.P. Bambab on- 22nd September, 1979 wrote a letter to Shri P.N .. Haksar submitting his resignation presumably in .protest against what had happened in regard to the appointment of respon- dent No. 4 as the Director of the Institute. I~ bis lett~r he stated that he had not received any official bio-data or information regarding the scientific contribuiion ofrcspondent No. -4 and 'other available candidates for the post of Director to enable him to form his .own • judgmerit. He said that he presumed .that the scienti5c' contribution of respondent No. 4 must have been- high enough to warrant his holding ihe post of Distinguished ·scientist. He also ·e~pressed the view that since the committee consist.ed of eminent scientists working under hi~ guidance, he bad presumed that all relevant factors had be"'.' taken into consideration regarding the appointment to the p~st of Director, including the quality of candidate's scientific contribution, in coming to a dei:ision. In the circurnstances he. has constr~ined to resign from the Council since he ha.I not displayed due diligence. in the performance of his function as member ,,f the Council.

406 SUPIUlME COuRT REPORTS (1984) 1 s.c.a.

The petitioner likewise rece~ved a letter from the. Chairman in which he did not deny the allegation contained in the petitioner's · letter dated 13th August, 1979 that the vacancy in the post of Director of respondent No. 1 had not been publicised. ) Another meeting of the Coucil was held on 19th October, 1979 \., and in this meeting Prof. Raja Ramanna, Dr. S.c: Bhattacharya and Dr. P.V. Sukhatme were not present and Dr. Bambah had resigned on 22nd September, 1979. Nonetheless, the proceedings of the mee- . ting of 19th October, 1979 do not allude to Dr. Bambah's resignation. In this meeting the letter of the petitioner was considered, copies of which had been circulated . to the members earlier. and the Council ·, c decided that no action was.necessary·in the n:iatter. • Shri V.M. Tarkunde appearing for the petitioner challe11ges the appointment of respondent No. 4 on various grounds : t

1. (a) Bye-law 2 expressly requires that the vacan·cy of D . the Directorship should be suitably publicised but in the present case no' publicity whatsoever was given to the.'vacancy of Directorship... .

(b} Even apart from the bye-law, publicity was ll necessary if the appointment ,_;as to be fair and free from partiality. -< . (c} The petitioner and many others like him were' not aware of the vacancy of the pos.t of Director, till the actual order of appointment of respon-"

' 2. dent No. 4 was made.

The petitioner was ·eminently suitable for being appointed to the post of Director keeping in ·view his various contributions in·the field of his work and the active part played by· him in resolving the adminis- G trative problems of the Institute.

3. No bio-data or information was placed before the Council which under the. bye-laws was the appointing authority of the Director to enable the members to H gauge the c,omparative suitability of various candi- dates for the post of Director.. No facts relating to .. the other candidates were presented before the

I B.S; MINHAS v. STATISTICAL INSTITIJTE (Misra, J.) 40'7

• selection committee by the Chairman. As such ·there was no application of mind by the members of A . the Council, since no report was circulated regarding . the recommendation of the selection committee, ·and • the members of the Council took it for granted that all was well.

Shri R.K. Garg appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2

- resisted the petition on the following grounds :

(i) that the petition is riot maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitut.ion as respondent Nos. 1 · and· 2 are not 'state or other authority' within c the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution.

(ii) ·(a) Even assuming, though not ,conceding, that there has been a violation of bye·law 2 no writ can lie to correct the same as the alleged bye-Jaw D has no staiutory basis inasmuch as by the Indian · · Statistical Institute Act, 1959 Parliament only '...,- declared the Indian Statistical Institute, respon- . )- dent No. 1 as an institution of national impor- tance' and if 'it has made . bye-law 2 for its guidance, such bye-law cannot be said to have E

- any statutory force.

(b) The bye-laws not being statutory the respondents are under no obligation to observe the procedure laid down in· the bye-laws: ·1

(iii) In any case the peiitioner was duly and properly considered for selection to the posl of Director and, therefore, he could not possibly make any -r . grievance about violation of bye-Jaw 2. ' .

In.view of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties the first question· that falls to be considered is whether the writ petition is maintainable.

Article 12 of the Constitution defines 'State' for the purposes · H (lf Part III of the Constitution. It reads :

A 408 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 S.C.R •

"12. In this part, unless the .context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parlia- ment qf India and the Goyefnment and the tegislature 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." B The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri ':Tarkunde has contended that having regard to the provisions of the Act and the memorandum of association, the composition of respondent No. I is dominated by the repr,esen!atives appointed by the Central Government. The money required for running the Institute is provi- c . ded entirely by the Central Governm·ent and even if any other moneys are to be .received by the Institute it can be done only with the approval of the Central Government, and the accounts of the Institute have also to be submitted to the Central Government for its scrutiny and satisfaction. .,The Society has to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the Central Goverment. The D 0

control of the Central Government is' deep and perva sive and, there- fore, to all-intents and· purposes,'· it is an. instrumentality of the Central Government and as such is an 'authority' within the mean- ·. ..,... . . ing M Art. .12 of the Constitution.. It is, therefore, subject to the constitutionai obligations under Arts. 14 and 16' of the Constitution. ~- Reliance was placed upon Ajay Hasia etc .. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. etc.(') The Constitution !lench in that case took !the view . that the expression 'other authorities' in Art. 12 must be given a broad and liberal interpretation, where constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake and functional realism and not facial cosmetics tnust be the diagnostic tool, .for constitutional law must seek" the substance and not the form. The Court pointed out the Government may act through the instrument- ality or agency of juridical persons to carry out. its functions, since, with the advent of the welfare State, iis new tasks have increased. manifold and such juridical persons acting as the instrumentality or. agency of the Government must therefore be subject to the same discipline of fundamental rights as the State. Proceeding further the Court observed : "It is undoubtedly true that' the corporation is a B distinct juristic entity with a C'?fporate structure of its own and it carries on its functions on business principles

(I) [1981]2 S.C.R. 79.

il.S. MINHA~ v, STATISTICAL INSTITUTE (Misra, J.) 409

~ith .a certain amount of autonomy which is · necessary as well .as useful from the point of view of effective . business l)lanagement, but behind the formal ownership which is· cast 'in the corporate mould, the reality is very much tlie deeply pervassive presence of the Government. It ·is really the Government which acts through the 'instrumentality or agency of the corporation and the · juristic veil. of corporate B personality worn for the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot be ·allowed to· obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which. is .the Government. Now'h is obvious that if a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. it c must be subject to the sallle Ilmiiations in ..the field of' constitutional law as the Government itself, though in the eye of the law it would be a distinct and indepen- . dent legal entity. If the Government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional limitations, it must follow ·a fortiori that the Government acting D through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation should equally .be subjeet to the same limitations. If such a corporation were to be free from the basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights, -it would lead to considerable erosion of the . efficiency of the fundamental Rights, for in that event the government

- would be enabled to over-ride the Fundamental Rights by adopting the stratagem of carrying out its functions th.rough the instrumentality · or agency of a corpor"1tion, while retaining control over it." • Having regard to this decision and in view of the facts and circumstances in the present case there can ·be no· doub.t · that respondent No.2 is an 'authority' within· the meaning· of_ Art. 12 of the Constitution and. therefore, the ·writ petition filed by the petitioner is competent and maint_ainable and the objection raised by Shri Garg cannot be accepted. ' The next question that arises· for consideration is whMher tlie appointment of respondent No.4 as Director of respondent No.I is ··illegal because of non-compliance with bye'law 2. Bye·law 2 does tequire that before appointment, the vacancy ·in the post of Director H · sl).ciald be suitably publicised. I~ the instatnt case, ·it is admitted cin both sides that no publicity wbatsover was given in respect of the •

p. 410 Copy page pinpoint

vacancy. The contention of Shri Garg, however, is that the bye-law having no force of statute, non-compliance with its requirement can- not in any way affect the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Director ofrespondeni No. !. Shrl Tarkunde, however, :contended that assuming that the bye-law is not statutory, even so respondent No. 1 was bound to comply with it; In support of his contention he B strongly relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shettj v. Intemationa/ Airport . Authority of India.(') The Court in that case held :

"It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the .. standards by which it professes its actions to be judged 0 and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was· enunciated by Mr.· Justice Frankfurter in Viteral/i v: Seton(') where ihe learned Judge said:

D "An executive agency must be rigorously held to ·the standards by which it professes its actfon to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is bassed on a defined procedure, even thilugh . generous beyond ·the requirements th~t.bind such agency, that procedure mu~t b.e scrupulously observed, This judicially evolved ·rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword." ' . .

,. The aforesaid principle laid down by . Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vileralli v. Seton(') has been accepted as applicable in India by this Court in A. S. Ahluwalia v. Punjab("! ·and in subsequent decision , given ln Sukhdev v. Bhagatram.('! Mathew J. quoted the above- referreq observation ·of Mr. Justice Frankfurther with approval.

G In view of the pronouncement of this Court on the point it ~ust be held to be obligatory on the part of respondent No, I to follow the bye-laws, if the bye-laws have been framed for the conduct cif its' ·affairs to avoid arbitrahness. Respondent No. I cannot, ' . 8 (I) [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1014. . . . . (2) 3 Law 'Ed. Second Series' 1012. · •(3)'.[l975J 3 S.C.R. 82. · (4) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 619 • •

B.S. MINHAS v. STATISTICAL JNSTITUTE (Misra, J.) 411

therefore, escape the liablity for not f111Iowing the procedure prescribed by bye-law 2. A Compliance. with this bye~law also seems to be necessary in· the name of fair-play. ,.lf the vacancy in the post of Director had been publicised as coniemplated by bye-law 2, all the persons eligible for the post may have applied and in that case, the field of conside- ration would have been enlarged and the selection committee or the B

.. Council would have had a much larger field from which to ·choose the best available person and that would have removed all doubt, of . arbitrariness from the mind of those eligible for the post. Of course, we do not wish to suggest for a moment that appointment to every post tnust be made only after advertising or publicising the ·vacancy. That would not be right, for there are quite a few posts at the top. level which cannot be and should not. be ~advertised 'or publicised, . because ·they are posts for which there should be no lobbying nor should any applications be allowed to be entertained. Examples of - such posts may be found in the post of Commander of Armed Forces or the Chief Justice or the Judges of the Supreme Court or the High D

- Court. But here bye- law 2 requires that vacancy in the post of Director should be publicised and hence we are making the above observation in this paragraph . • The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been considered for appQintment to the post of Director although he is E far superior to respondent No. 4. If there had tieen due· publicity as required by bye-law 2, he. and many others like him would have applied for the post. Shri Garg, however, contends for· respondent No. tthat the petitiqner can have no grievance as his case was duly consid~red as stated clearly in the affidavit of respondent .No. 3, S\tri P.N. Haksar, Chairman of the Council. We accept the state• ., ' merit of respondent No. 3 that the case· of the petitioner was conside• red by the selection committee but it is a little unfortunate that 'there -¥ ,.,, is no written report by the selection committee for consideration by the Council. No minutes of the proceedings before the selection committee have been maintained and none were circulated amongst the members of the Council ·along with the agenda of the meeting . nor were any such minutes placed before the Council meeting when the name of respondeni No. 4 was approved by the Council. There is also'nothing on record to show that the Council was at any time informed as to what names had been considered by the selection committee or that the name of the petitioner had been considered but' respondent No. 4 was found superior. It is always desirable that in

.,. 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19841 I s.c.a.

public bodies the minutes of the proceedings regarding selection should be properly maintained in order to obviate any suspicion or ·doubt and such minutes along with the relevant documents should be placed before the final authority entrusted with. the task of selection for appointment. .

A lot of argument has been advanced by Shri Tarkunde ·that the achivevements and accomplishments of the petitioner were much higher than those.of respondent No. 4. His contribution in the matter of research had won him high praise. He had written articles ·and books of great merit. On the other hand the achievements or accomplishments of respondent No. 4 were much lower when com· c pared to those of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not for the ·Court to determine who is the· superior of the' two candidates and ivho should be selected. It is for the authorities concerned to select from aniongst the available candidates. The members of the selec· tion committee as also the members of the Council were emlhent persons and they may be presumed to have taken ·into account· all D relevant considerations before coming to a conclusion, But the real . difficulty is that in the absence of publicity ;is contemplate\! by bye- law 2, it cannot be said that all other qualified persons like the petitioner were also considered by the selection committee. for appointment, in the absence of any application by them for the post E · or any recommendation of them by any other authority or individual. · ·

i;hri Garg, however, contends that the office of the Director is a very high office and this honour is conferred and not· demanded and an application for this office from the candidates was not at all F necessllry as in the case of Judges of the Supreme Court, High Court and other constitutional posts of Comptroller and Auditor Geperal ·of India etc, The selection committee composed of eminent 'scientists . ·or high reputation must be knowing about the reputed men in the field of statistics ·and it is expected that they must have considered the. 'case of those persons also. · · ·'

For reasons we have already indicated, we find no force iii this contention. ' There is no provision for publicity in case of the constitutional posts of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and Comptroller and Auditor General of India-. Rather in the H very nature of things, they cannot be and are not publicised.. But in the case of appointment of a'Dir~ctor, bye-law 2 clearly provides for · puplicity and it can only be with the object that all concerned may

il.S. MINHAS v. STATlStICAL INSTITUTE (Misra, J.) 413

know abouf the vacancy and ·either applications or recommendations may be made for the post and the names of the eligible candidates my be brought before the selection com'mittee for its consideration. fo the state of the record before us it is not possible to say that the members of the Council considered the case of the petitioner and other candi- dates like him before approving the appointment of respondent No. 4. It is true that the members of the selection committee and those of 8 the Council were experts in their respective subjects and were eminent scientists and we must proceed on the basis that they acted in all . fairness ·and no oblique motive can be attributed to them. Indeed Shri Tarkunde did not 'allege any ma/a fidesagainst the members of the selection committee or the members of the Coun'cil. • 0 • On the admitted position, no publicity in regard to the vacancy was done at all. No information about it was .Published even on the ·notice board kept in the various branches of respondent No. J. at Calcutta and othei places. Nor was the information published in the Journal of respondent No,· I. There '."as clearly a breach of bye-law D ·2'in making appointment of respondent No. 4 and there was no adequate material before the Council on the basis of which the mem~ bers could apply their mind for determining as io whether they should approve the rec<immendation of the selection commitee in regard to appointment of respondent No. 4. E

- For the foregoi1;1g reasons the writ petition must succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The order of appointment dated 3rd Au~t, 1979 of respondent No. 4 as the Director of respondent. No. 1 is• ' quashed and set aside. This will however not in any way affect the validity of any action already taken ·by respondent No. 4 as Director nor will it involve him in any liahility to refund any excess r.emune- F ration received by him in his capacity af Director. Before respondent No. I proceeds to select a new Director, it will comply with the require!"ent of bye-law 2 by givinii1g suita'Qle publicty to th\} vacancy in the office of Director. In ihe circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. G

N.V.K. Pe(ition allowed.