M THAHA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL NIRD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions assail the selection and appointment of Dr. Tarun Bikar Lahiri and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh (respondents 3 in both the writ petitions) as Directors made by the National Institute of Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as 'NIRD') on different grounds. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, I intend to first dispose of the preliminary objection taken by Mr. V.V.S. Rao, the learned counsel for NIRD, that this Court has no jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the instant writ petitions as NIRD is not a 'State' within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 of the Constitution reads:

(2.) The definition of the term 'the State' furnished at the top of Part-III coveting Fundamental rights is meant to indicate the authorities and instrumentalities functioning within or beyond the territories of India that shall act in conformity with the provisions of Part-III of the Constitution. The fundamental rights listed in Part-in of the Constitution are immune from invasion or infringement by any action of the State as defined therein. Inasmuch as ordinary law provides for protection against private action, the Constitution has provided for sufficient protection of the fundamental rights against the might of the State. The whole object of Part-in of the Constitution, in the words of Patanjali Sastri, CJ., is to provide protection for the freedoms and rights mentioned therein against arbitrary invasion by the State. Now, the argument of Mr. V.V.S. Rao is that the impugned actions in these writ petitions being by a body not falling within the definition of State as per Article 12, they amount to private actions not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) To examine whether the expression 'other authorities' occurring in the definition covers NIRD, it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Smt. Ujjambai vs. State of U.P. and Electricity Board, Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal has rejected the interpretation of the expression 'other authorities' in the background of the doctrine Ejusdem Generis with Government or Legislature on the ground that in Article 12 there is no common genus running through the bodies named therein nor the bodies named could be placed in one single category. Accordingly the Supreme Court held that 'other authorities' cannot be restricted to those exercising governmental or sovereign functions only.