Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of Shri B.P. Adhikari as the Director of the Indian Statistical Institute, which is governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 and is fully financed and controlled by the Central Government. The petitioner, a Distinguished Scientist at the Institute, challenged this appointment on several grounds, primarily alleging that the vacancy for the Directorship was not publicized as required by bye-law 2, which mandates suitable publicity before recruitment. The petitioner argued that this lack of publicity prevented qualified candidates, including himself, from applying for the position. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 32 as the Institute was not a 'state' or 'other authority' under Article 12. They also claimed that even if there was a violation of the bye-law, it did not have statutory force and thus did not invalidate the appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Indian Statistical Institute is indeed an 'authority' under Article 12 due to its deep control by the Central Government, making the writ petition maintainable. The court found that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was invalid due to non-compliance with bye-law 2, which was essential for ensuring fair play in the selection process. The court emphasized that proper procedures must be followed to avoid arbitrariness in public appointments. Consequently, the court quashed the appointment of respondent No. 4 and directed the Institute to comply with the bye-law before proceeding with the selection of a new Director.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Articles 12, 32 - The Indian Statistical Institute is deemed an 'authority' under Article 12 due to its control by the Central Government, making the writ petition maintainable. The court held that the funding and control by the Central Government established the Institute as an instrumentality of the State (Paras 408 C-D). B) Administrative Law - Compliance with Bye-Laws - Appointment Procedures - Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959, Bye-law 2 - The Institute was obligated to publicize the vacancy for the Director position as per bye-law 2, which was not followed, leading to the quashing of the appointment. The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with procedural requirements to avoid arbitrariness (Paras 410 G, 411 B). C) Fair Play in Appointments - Necessity of Publicity - Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959, Bye-law 2 - The lack of publicity for the Director's vacancy limited the field of candidates, undermining fair play in the selection process. The court held that proper publicity would have allowed for a broader consideration of qualified candidates (Paras 411 B, 412 H-413 A).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Indian Statistical Institute is an 'authority' under Article 12 and whether the appointment of the Director was valid despite non-compliance with bye-law 2.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Director of the Indian Statistical Institute due to non-compliance with bye-law 2, which required suitable publicity for the vacancy. The court held that the Institute is an 'authority' under Article 12, making the writ petition maintainable.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- Article 12
- Article 32
- Bye-law compliance
- Appointment procedures
- Fair play in appointments
