MISRA - (1.) 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.
(2.) THE Indian Statistical Institute is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Its control completely vests in the Union of India, respondent No. 5. It is wholly financed by the Union of India. All the functions of the Institute are controlled by the Union of India, as is evident from the various provisions of the Act. Under Section 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 programme 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 statistics as may be determined by the Institute from time to time. In accordance with the provisions of S. 5 of the Act the Central Government pays to the Institute in each financial year such sums of money as the Government considers necessary by way of grant, loan or otherwise to enable the Institute to discharge efficiently its functions including research, education, training, project activities and satistical work relating to planning for national development. Section 6 of the Act deals with audit of accounts 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 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 property acquired with the money specifically provided for such acquisition by the Central Government except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Section 9 empowers the Central Government to constitute a committee, inter alia, for reviewing and evaluating the work done by the Institute 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 11 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions to the Institute. Section 12 authorises the Central Government to assume control over the Institute under certain extreme circumstances. The Institute receives grants from the Central Government to meet almost the entire expenditure on its plan and non-plan activities. 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 proposed by the President or members of the Council. The election of the Chairman of the Council is governed by bye-laws of the Institute. The initial appointment to carry but 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 Distinguished Scientist. In order to discharge the administrative and academic responsibilities of the Institute, a Director, with distinctive administrative and academic acumen, is appointed by the Council, respondent No. 2. Shri B. P. Adhikari, respondent No. 4, was appointed as the Director of the Institute by an order dated 3/08/1979. This order of appointment has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was a Distinguished Scientist of the Institute at the relevant time. To start with, he was appointed to the post of Economist in the Indian Statistical Institute on 1/10/1962 on a monthly pay of Rs. 1000.00 in the time scale of Rs. 750-50-1250 plus special pay of Rs. 350.00 per month. Within a year he was promoted as Professor in the time scale of Rupees 1000-50-1500 with a starting pay of Rs. 1400.00 per month, and from 1/10/1967 he had been holding the post of Research Professor in the time scale of Rs. 1600-100-1900. On 1/01/1968 he was made Officer-in-Charge and entrusted with all technical matters, administration and developmental plans relating to planning and regional survey units and training in Delhi. He was given a special allowance of Rs. 200.00 per month over and above the pay in the time scale of Research Professorship. The petitioner has been responsible during the period 1962-1974 for the 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 direction of the petitioner. In August 1974 the petitioner was designated as Head of the Delhi Centre and was also appointed to the Institute's Committee of Administration. On 12/03/1976 he was elevated to the position of 'Distinguished Scientist' with pay of Rs. 3000.00per month plus allowances. The petitioner has held responsible positions as Visiting Professor, Fellow, Chairman, Consultant, Research Associate, Lecturer etc. in various Universities in India and in the United States of America and England. He has been a member of the Planning Commission, Government of India from January 197 1/12/1973 and he has also been a member of the Sixth Finance Commission from July 197 2/10/1973. 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 Memorial Prize for Economics in 1974 and the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fellowship in 1975. In 1976 the petitioner had the distinction of presiding over the annual conference of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. People abroad have also conferred recognition on the petitioner. 5A. The petitioner's scientific output has been substantial. He has been active in research and he has published books of importance on Theory of International Trade, Scheduling the Operations of Multipurpose Reservoirs, Indian Planning, Planning and the Poor etc. His contributions in the form of articles in collaboration with Indian 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 Basic Need, Development Policy in Sri Lanka, Kerala and Punjab. 2. Inter-Regional Comparisons of Agricultural Growth and Development in South Asia in the post-colonial period. It is claimed that a comparative evaluation of the achievements of the petitioner with those of respondent No. 4 clearly shows the superiority of the petitioner over respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had joined the Institute as Professor in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1250. He was appointed in Delhi and was in charge of the evening course in Introductory Statistics. He served in Delhi for about a year and then went to Calcutta and continued as Professor from 1961 to 1974. In contrast, the petitioner had started at a higher salary of Rs. 1000.00 p. m. plus a special pay of Rs. 350.00 p. m. The petitioner had been promoted to the higher post of Research Professor on 1/10/1967 in the time scale of Rupees 1600-100-1900 while respondent No. 4 had been promoted to the post of Research Professor only in 1974. At that time respondent No. 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 had been appointed to the higher post of Research Professor earlier than respondent No. 4. On 12/03/1976 the petitioner was promoted to the position of a Distinguished Scientist. The petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4 and all other scientists of the Institute. The petitioner's elevation to the position of Distinguished Scientist came much earlier than that of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has been holding the position of Distinguished Scientist since 12/03/1976 while respondent No. 4 was not a Distinguished Scientist till his impugned appointment as Director. Respondent No. 4 has won no laurels in his sphere of work and his scientific output has been negligible. Thus, from all accounts the petitioner was more qualified and his achievements in all spheres were much higher than those of respondent No. 4 or for the matter of that, than those of any other scientist of the Institute.;