Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 12 and 32 Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Whether instrumentality of Central Government-Whether covered by the expression 'other authorities-Whether amendable to writ jurisdiction

Articles 14, 16 and 39(d)-Pay scale of post of Professor revised-Existing incumbents not granted the benefit of revised scale-New incumbents granted the revised scale Defence of employer was there was marginal revision in qualifications for the post-Action whether discriminatory and unfair.

Article 16-Selection Committee-Whether has power to relax essential qualifications for the post-jurisdiction of Courts to interfere with decision of Selector Committee-When arises.

Malafides Selection Committee-Qualification requirement relaxed 10 suli preferred candidate-Selection whether vitiated.

Public employment Experience to be of value and utility must be acquired after educational qualification obtained-Not while acquiring, post-graduate qualifi cation.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research 1977, Rules 13 ans 14: Fixation of minimum qualifying marks for eligibility for viva-voce test-Further fixation of qualifying marks to be obtained at viva-voce for final selection-Validity of.

Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order XL & Constitution of India, 1950 Article 137: Writ petition dismissed by High Court allowing preliminary objection that it had no jurisidiction to entertain petition-High Court becomes functus officio and decision on merits inconsequential-Supreme Court in later, case over-ruling the same preliminary objection-Supreme Court entitled to examine matter on merits-Review Petition maintainable.

The Royal, Commission of Agriculture constituted in 1926 recommended the setting up of the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research-ICAR. In July 1929, ICAR was registered as a Society with its office in the Secretariat. It was wholly financed by the Government of India. By a resolution dated January 5, 1939 the Government of India modified the status of ICAR from a department of the, Secretariat to one of an attached office of the Government of India., Recruitment to various posts in ICAR was made through the Federal Public Service Commission. Its expenses were voted upon as part of the expenses incurred in the Ministry of Agriculture. The control of the Government of India permeated

a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it was neither a 'State or other authority' within the contemplation of Article 12.. It was further beld. that the relationship between the petitioner and ICAR was governed by the rules and the bye-laws of the Society and ICAR was free to fill the post of Senior Bio- Chemist in any manner it liked, and that'as the petitioner was not removed from the membership of the Faculty, but ceased to be a member, it was not necessary to hear him.

This Court upheld the decision of the High Court.by its judgment in S.L.P. No. 2339/75 and also rejected R.P. No. 79/76.

The Petitioner in Review Petition No. 80/76 sought review of the judgment in S.L.P. No. 702 of 1976 which was disposed of along with S.L.P. No. 2339/1975.

The appellant in C.A. No. 1043 of 1981 filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that he was selected for the post of Senior Computer in the Indian Agri- culture Statistics Research Institute, an affiliate of ICAR. The ICAR set up the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board-ASRB which framed rules in 1977 and decided to hold a competitive examination in 1978 to recruit scientists. Selection was to be made by a competitive examination comprising a written test carrying 600 marks in the aggregate and viva-voce test carrying 100 marks. It was further provided that anyone to be eligile for being admitted in the merit list should also have the additional qualification of at least obtaining. 40 marks in the viva-voro test. The appellant contended that he has secured 364 marks out of 600 in the written examination and 38 marks out of 100 in the viva-voce test, and that the action of Board in fixing minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce examination and basing the final selection on this criterion lacked both the authority of law and rules. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in limine.

Allowing the Review Petitions, Writ Petition and Appeal: