Y KATTEPPA Vs. UNIVERSITIES OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is rarely that a public employment attains finality now a days without being challenged and made subject matter of judicial review before the superior Courts of the country. Whether the appointments are at the lowest level that of an Attender, Peon etc. , categorized as class IV employees or appointment at the highest level even at the level of vice Chancellor of the University, such appointments are questioned and challenged before the Court as illegal, violative of the constitutional provisions, as being vitiated by mala fides, bias or favouritism. It is more an exception than a rule that any such appointments attain finality without being made subject matter of judicial review. The questions and challenges relating to public employment, not merely initial appointments but even during the tenure of employment, promotions, entitlement of wages and salary and related questions have engaged the attention of the superior Courts ever since our country adopted and is governed by the Constitution of India from the year 1950 onwards. More than 50% of the litigation in the superior Courts were only of matters relating to service conditions of the employees employed by the State. Whether employment is by the State per se, in the sense, it is by either the State Government or the Central government or such other bodies like local authorities or public sector undertakings, the challenges to such employments continue to remain before the superior courts. The proliferation of writ litigation in the service sector while may be a sign of confidence reposed in the judicial system and the courts also do examine such grievances on the touchstone of judicial review of administrative action, at the same time, it is a poor reflection on the executive part of the State running the administration of the State as large number of citizens dissatisfied in respect of the administrative action carried out and implemented by the Executive part of the State to give effect to the legislation ushered in by the competent legislatures reflecting the will of the people, is not a very healthy trend as it indicates that the administration is not on sound lines; that there is either lapse or shortcoming on the part of the executive part of the State in implementing the statutory provisions and this is a serious matter which the administration has to take note of. Administration on sound management lines results in reducing the follies, inconsistencies, avoiding illegalities and this should be the endeavour of the Executive part of the State. It is in the wake of such prolific litigation, the Parliament thought it proper to establish Administrative Tribunals which can exclusively examine the grievances of the employees employed not only by the governments but also by notified public sector undertakings.

(2.) THE definition of 'state' for the purpose of Part-Ill of the Constitution of India has been expanding. The societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the trusts, the limited companies, societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, quasi Governmental bodies and all institutions either having a flavour Governmental activities or funded, controlled or managed by the government have all been brought within the scope of the phrase 'state' as it occurs in Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution of India.

(3.) PART-IN of the Constitution of India comprises of fundamental rights and Article 16 is a fundamental right, though in a sense, it is not a positive right as Article 16 ensures equal opportunity to all citizens in the matter of public employment not that every citizen is assured of employment but every citizen should be afforded an opportunity to compete public employment. Further mandate of Article 16 of the constitution of India is persons who aspire for employment under the 'state' as the expression occurs in Part III cannot be discriminated on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence etc. , nor can be made ineligible on such grounds. No doubt, sub-articles (3), (4), (4-A)and (4-B) of Article 16 provides for exceptions in favour of identified groups of persons, but Article 16 mandates the State to ad-here to the fulfillment of assurance of equal opportunity to all citizens by not shutting out options to any citizen in the matter of public employment and also to ensure equal treatment while considering the aspiring persons to be appointed.