Karnataka High Court
Ravi Shankar Shukla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR5344, 2002(2)KARLJ329, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 456, (2002) 2 KANT LJ 329 (2002) 5 SERVLR 434, (2002) 5 SERVLR 434
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, C.J.
1. It is alleged the appellant-petitioner who has worked as Junior Research Fellow and as Lecturer in the institution of 3rd respondent was fully eligible for appointment to the post of Reader in Audiology as he is a holder of Ph.D. Degree in Speech and Hearing which was conferred in March 1989, but the 4th respondent who did not possess Ph.D. Degree on the date of application was selected. He applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 27-5-1995 and appeared for interview on 12-7-1995 but ignoring him the 4th respondent was selected. The learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability as not amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution.
2. In response to the show-cause notice, statement of objection was filed. The learned Counsel for the respondent state that the petitioner as well as 4th respondent who applied for the post of Reader in Audiology were interviewed by the Committee and as per the condition one can be selected if he can get his Ph.D. degree within 5 years and on consideration by the Committee respondent 4 was selected in February 1996. The respondent 4 got Ph.D. degree within 3 months of selection. The petitioner has filed this petition at a belated stage in July 1996 and liable to be dismissed on that account. The petitioner has no case even on merits. This petition is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. Against the same institution a writ petition has been filed earlier in Writ Petition No. 23140 of 1983 and the learned Single Judge of this Court relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna v The National Council of Educational Research and Training and Others, dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, no interference is called for. This writ appeal is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. Providing or rendering public service as per Society Bye-laws alone so also mere financial contribution by the State is not conclusive to hold a Society as either agency or instrumentality of the Government so as to be amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution. In other words, every autonomous body which has some access with the Government cannot ipso facto come within the meaning of Article 12 unless satisfies the requirement of Article 12 of the Constitution. However each case depends upon the farts and circumstances of its own. Now the question is whether the writ is maintainable or not. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed Memorandum of Association and relied that this institute is affiliated to Mysore University and as per Clause (e), they can invite representatives of Governments, Universities and other Organisations of India and of foreign countries to deliver lectures on subjects in which the Society is interested. There is an Executive Council having fixed terms and some of the persons are appointed by the Government and the rules are to be approved by Central Government. Under the circumstances and on that basis the learned Counsel argued that it has the full control and amenable to writ jurisdiction.
5. The Counsel has not been able to show that this autonomous body is getting entire financial assistance and overall control. Merely because the institution has got membership and other provisions it will not ipso facto mean that this institution is a State and comes within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. We are not satisfied with the requirements and agree with the view taken in the earlier case of this institu-
tion which was dismissed as not maintainable relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Khanna's case, supra. On overall consideration, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Once the writ is not maintainable, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage. The writ appeal is also dis missed as not maintainable.