1967 (4) TMI 195 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a University can be held to be local or other authority as defined in Art. 12? Held that - In considering whether a statutory or constitutional body is an authority within the meaning of Art. 12, it would be necessary to bear in mind not only whether against the authority, fundamental rights in terms absolute are intended to be enforced, but also whether it was intended by the Constitution makers that the authority was invested with the sovereign power to impose restrictions on very important and basic fundamental freedoms. In my judgment, authorities constitutional or statutory invested with power by law but not sharing the sovereign power do not fall within the expression State as defined in Art. 12. Those authorities which are invested with sovereign power i.e., power to make rules or regulations and to administer or enforce them to the detriment of citizens and others fall within the definition of State in Art. 12, and constitutional or statutory bodies which do not share that sovereign power of the State are not, in my judgment, State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 became a permanent employee of the Electricity Board.
2. Whether the Electricity Board is considered "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 became a permanent employee of the Electricity Board:

The appellant, the Electricity Board of Rajasthan, argued that respondent No. 1 and respondents 4 to 14 were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board by a notification dated 12th February 1958. The Board contended that respondent No. 1 never became a permanent servant of the Board and did not hold any substantive post under it. Respondent No. 1 claimed he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Engineer under the Board, as some promoted individuals were junior to him. The High Court held that respondent No. 1 was in the service of the Board, akin to respondents 4 to 14, and was entitled to be considered for promotion. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting that both the Government and the Board treated respondent No. 1 and the other respondents as if they had become employees of the Board. The Court emphasized that the Board did not frame any new grades or service conditions, thus respondent No. 1 continued to be governed by the old grades and service conditions applicable when he was a State Government servant. Therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered for promotion on equal terms with respondents 4 to 14.

2. Whether the Electricity Board is considered "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution:

The Board argued that it could not be considered "State" under Article 12, as it was an autonomous body primarily constituted for commercial activities. The Board relied on the principle of ejusdem generis, suggesting that "other authorities" should be interpreted in the context of government and legislative bodies. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that there is no common genus running through the named bodies in Article 12. The Court cited previous judgments to support its view that "other authorities" include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law. The Court highlighted that the Board, created by statute, had quasi-governmental powers and was authorized to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise. The Court concluded that the Board is an authority within the meaning of Article 12, as it has powers to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions, including issuing directions and enforcing compliance.

Separate Judgment by Shah, J.:

Shah, J. agreed with the order proposed by Bhargava, J., stating that the Board is an authority invested by statute with certain sovereign powers of the State. He emphasized that the Board has extensive powers of control over electricity undertakings and the power to make rules and regulations, which are sovereign powers delegated to the Board. However, Shah, J. disagreed with the broader interpretation that every constitutional or statutory authority on whom powers are conferred by law is "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12. He argued that only those authorities invested with sovereign power to make rules or regulations and enforce them to the detriment of citizens fall within the definition of "State" in Article 12.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision that respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered for promotion on equal terms with respondents 4 to 14 and that the Electricity Board is considered "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.