Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib- Case Summary
- shrey singh
- Apr 12, 2020
- 5 min read
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
(1981) 1 SCC 722 decided on November 13, 1980.
Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and A.D. Koshal, JJ.
Facts
The Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, which was sponsored by the Government of India, is established and its administration and management are carried out by a Society registered under the J&K Registration of Societies Act. It appears from the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society that the composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The money required for running the College are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society, it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. No immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or the Central Government can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Governments.
The petitioners applied for admission in the College to the first semester of the B.E. course in response to a notice issued by the College for such admission. They appeared in a written test consisting of 100 marks as well as an interview consisting of 50 marks, but could not be selected for the admission. They, therefore, filed the present petitions contending that the selection was violative of Article 14 on the grounds that the Society acted arbitrarily in the matter of granting of admissions, first by ignoring the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination; secondly, by relying on viva voce examination as a test for determining comparative merit of the candidates; thirdly, by allocating as many as 50 marks for the viva voce examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test; and lastly, by holding superficial interviews lasting only 2 or 3 minutes on an average and asking questions which had no relevance to assessment of the suitability of the candidates with reference to the factors required to be considered at the viva voce examination. The Supreme Court held the writ petitions maintainable.
Operative Part
In the present case though the selection was vitiated, the Supreme Court did not consider it justified in exercise of its discretion, in setting aside the selections made for the academic year in question i.e. 1979-80, after the lapse of a period of about 18 months, since to do so would be to cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the validity of the selection cannot otherwise be questioned and who have nearly completed three semesters and, moreover, even if the petitioners are ultimately found to be deserving of selection on the application of the proper test, it would not be possible to restore them to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979-80, which has run out long since.
Question of Law
Whether the college falls within the definition of ‘State’ under Art. 12 of the Constitution?
Held
The Court said that the test for determining if an authority falls within the definition of State in Article 12 is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. It is, therefore, immaterial whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a Company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the Company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression “authority” in Article 12.
The Court reiterated the test laid down in the case of RD Shetty Case which is:
(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character.
(3) It may also be a relevant factor … whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’ of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government.
The Court further said that the above test are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression “other authorities”, it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression.
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that the Society registered under the J&K Registration of Societies Act, which established and carried on the administration and management of the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, is an instrumentality or agency of the State and the Central Governments and is an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12. The State Government and by reason of the provision for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments and, the voice is that of the State and the Central Governments and the hands are also that of the State and the Central Governments.
Comments