LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-253

I M C LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 14, 2008
I M C Ltd Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to bring about parity of pay scale of the academic staff of the State Council of Educational Research(SCERT) with that of the academic staff of the National Council for Educational Research and Training(NCERT). Another prayer that was made in these writ petitions was to quash and set aside the notification dated 7.12.1999 whereby the respondent No.3/SCERT brought about an amendment by substituting conditions of service of the academic staff forthwith:

(2.) Notice was issued on the aforesaid writ petitions which was also contested by the respondents. The respondents have taken up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the respondent-SCERT is not a 'State' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The said issue was also a subject matter of a SLP which was admitted by the Supreme Court and registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No.3272 of 2003 titled as Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. vs. V.K. Sodhi and Ors. Since the said issue was pending before the Supreme Court, this matter was adjourned from time to time. In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, the matter was also referred to a larger Bench for settling the question of law which was referred to the Full Bench for decision.

(3.) On 14th August, 2007, the Supreme Court has pronounced the judgment in the case of V.K. Sodhi and Ors. (supra) wherein it is held by the Supreme Court that the SCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and normally not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As an authoritative pronouncement has been made by the Supreme Court with regard to the preliminary objection which is raised before us, we dispose of the writ petitions in terms of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court holding that the present writ petitions are not maintainable. The parties shall bear their own cost.