D. A. Desai, J. - (1.) In this group of writ petition, civil appeal, special leave petition and review petitions. a common question of law is raised whether Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR' for short) and its affiliate Indian Veterinary Research Institute ('IVRI' for short) are either themselves the State or such other authority as would be comprehended in the expression 'Other authority' in Article 12 of the Constitution Re:W. P. No. 587/75:
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 was Professor of Animal Pathology, petitioner No. 2 was Professor of Animal Genetics and petitioner No. 3 was Professor of Veterinary Parasitology, ail attached to IVRI Six posts of Professors one each in Animal Pathology, Animal Genetics, Veterinary Parasitology, Animal Nutrition, Bacteriology and Physiology were created on the introduction of the post-graduate wing in IVRI in 1958. At the relevant time the post of Professor carried the scale of Rs. 700-1250. Of the six posts, first mentioned, three posts of Profesors were held by the petitioners in their respective discipline. On the introduction of the scales recommended by the University Grants Commission, the pay scale attached to the post of Professor in IVRI was revised to Rs. 1100-1600. After the upward revision during the year 1970-71, the cadre of Professors in IVRI was expanded by creating six new posts of Professors in various disciplines. Surprisingly, each of the petitioners. who was already holding post of Professor, was not given the benefit of the upgraded scale attached to the Post of Professor while on the other hand the new incumbents recruited in the newly created posts in the year 1970-71 were awarded the revised scale of Rs. 1100-1600. This led to the disturbance in the inter se seniority in the cadre of Professors and manifested an anomalous position that the old incumbents of the posts of Professors such as petitioners, continued in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 700-1250 while the new incumbents were put in the revised scale of Rs. 1100-1606 both having the designation of Professor and there is no appreciable difference in the qualifications attached to the post. When this was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, the ICAR with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance resolved as per decision dated April 6, 1972 to award the revised scale of pay attached to the post of Professor to the petitioners, but this was subject to the condition that it would not be automatic but the existing incumbents of posts may be considered for revised scale along with other suitable persons. It was implicit in the condition Prescribed that the petitioners will have to stand in competition with other applicants, if there be any, and go through the hazard of a fresh selection for the post each one was already holding. This is the first grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition contending that the petitioners were qualified for the posts of Professor and that each of them was holding the post from 1963, 1970 and 1970 respectively. The petitioners made various representations basing their claim inter alia on fair play, equality of Opportunity in the matter of public employment and equal pay for equal work as well as the provision contained in Fundamental. Rule 23. The petitioners also contend that they fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed for the post after upward revision of the pay-scale, and they have the requisite experience and that they are performing the same or identical duties as are being performed by newly recruited Professors in sister disciplines and that denial to them of the revised pay scales for the post of Professor apart from being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 is thoroughly arbitrary and unjustified. It appears that pursuant to the decision dated April 6, 1972, the ICAR issued an advertisement on May 21, 1974 inviting applications for the post of Professor In Animal Pathology, Animal Genetics and Veterinary Parasitology in the revised scale of Rs, 1100-1600. These were the posts already held by petitioners, The advatisement set out the essential and desirable qualifications for each post, Petitioners contend that the duties pertaining to the post of Professor in the upgraded wale are the sump, as performed by the petitioners and that this action of inviting, fresh applications for posts already held by the petitioners disclosed covert attempt to remove the petitioners, from the posts held by them for years. Petitioners further contend that only three posts held by the petitioners have been. advertised inviting the applications for fresh recruitment while there were others, who were holding posts, of Professors in the pre-revised scale and to whom benefit of automatic up ward revision was granted and this disclosed not only the bias of the ICAR but also subject the petitioners to gross discrimination. Serious allegations of bias and mala fide have been made against respondent No. 6, the Director of IVRI, and Director General of ICAR, which need not be set out here. It may, however, be stated that though the various functionaries working in IVRI and ICAR are highly qualified persons, professional rivalry had led to such poisoning of the atmosphere and character assassination had become so rampant and the environment had become so suffocating that the Government of India had to appoint a Committee presided over by late Shri P. B. Gajendragadkar, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with wide terms of reference which amongst others included the recruitment and personnel policies of ICAR as well as Institutes and Centres working under it and to suggest measures for their improvement. It is alleged that absolutely incorrect, improper and prejudiced entries are made in confidential reports with a view to harming the career of the persons who have fallen from the grace of the Director and that, therefore, the Court should lift the veil of the so-called society and peep into the realities of life. The Petitioners accordingly prayed for an appropriate, writ, order or direction to quash the advertisement dated May 21, 1975 inviting applications for the posts of Professors in three subjects already held by the petitioners and to confirm the petitioners in the aforementioned posts and to give them the benefit of the revised scale from the date from which it was given to Professors in sister disciplines and to quash the adverse entries in the confidential reports of the three petitioners. On these averments petitioners filed the present writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, Re:S. L. P. No. 2339/75 with R. P. No. 4/77:
(3.) One Dr. Y. P. Gupta filed Writ Petition No. 276 of 1972 in the High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the order removing him as member of the faculty of the post-graduate school of Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI for short). Petitioner Dr. Gupta also questioned the validity of appointment of Dr. S. L. Mehta-respondent No. 6 in the High Court to the post of Senior Biochemist in IARI and claimed that he was entitled to be appointed to that post. This petition was resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that neither ICAR nor IVRI is either a State or other authority within the meaning of the expression in Article 12 of the Constitution. When the matter came up before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, a direction was given that in view of the importance of the questions that arise for determination in the writ petition before the Court and in view of the various decisions which have to be reconciled, the petition should be heard by a larger Bench. Pursuant to this direction, the matter came up before a Bench of a five Judges. The larger Bench formulated four questions for its considerations: "1. Do the petitioners have legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent 6 2. Has the Director-General of the ICAR acted in contravention of any legal obligation in making the appointment of respondent 6 3. Has the said appointment vitiated by the mala fides of Dr. Swaminathan and/or of Dr. Naik 4. Was it bad because of the want of qualifications of Dr. Mehta or non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in making it - The Court answered the first question against the petitioner holding that ICAR is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is neither a State nor other authority within contemplation of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the relation between the petitioner and ICAR is governed by a contract and the rules and the bye-laws of the Society and ICAR was free to fill in the post of Senior Bio-Chemist in any manner it liked. The Court observed that the petitioner being a mere employee, he has no legal right against the employer and in the absence of any statutory element governing his employment, the relation is governed purely by a contract and, a breach of contract, if any, would not permit a declaration in favour of the petitioner. Briefly, the Court held that the remedy by way of writ is not available against ICAR. On the second question the Court held that the Director-General owed no obligation or legal duty in making the appointment of the sixth respondent which can be enforced by a writ petition. Questions Nos. 3 and 4 were dealt together and it was held that the pleadings were inadequate to permit a finding of mala fide and in the absence of proof there is nothing to show that the appointment of the sixth respondent was vitiated either by mala fides or by non-compliance with procedure. Consistent with these findings, the writ petition of Dr. Gupta was dismissed. Simultaneously, the writ petition filed by one Dr. T. S. Raman being Writ Petition No, 669/72 was dismissed by the common judgment.;