http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPINATH GUNDACHAR CHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/1967

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. WANCHOO, K.N. (CJ) RAMASWAMI, V. MITTER, G.K. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  464            1968 SCR  (1) 767  CITATOR INFO :  E&D        1974 SC1613  (14)  R          1976 SC1027  (14)  R          1985 SC 883  (7)  RF         1986 SC2166  (6)  RF         1988 SC 587  (14)

ACT: Road Transport Corporation Act 64 of 1950-ss. 14,  19(1)(a), 19   (1)(b),  19(1)(c),  34,  45(1)   and   45(2)(c)-Whether Corporation can appoint officers and servants in the absence of any regulations framed under s. 45(2)(c).

HEADNOTE: The  General Manager of the appellant Corporation  issued  a notice   on   July  21,  1964  inviting   applications   for appointments,  to two junior posts in the Corporation.   The respondent,  who  was  an employee of  the  Corporation  and claimed  that  he had a right to be promoted to one  of  the posts,  filed  a  writ  petition  under  Art.  226  of   the Constitution  challenging the notice on the ground that  the Corporation  had  no  power to issue it.   The  High  Court, following its earlier decision in Karnakar Mangesha Desai v. State of Mysore and other [1960](1) Mysore Law Journal  72), held   that  until  regulations  had  been  framed  by   the Corporation under s. 45(2) (c) with the previous sanction of the State Government-and this has admittedly not been  done- the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants  and lay down their conditions of service. On appeal to this Court by special leave. HELD:     Allowing  the  Appeal:  section  14(2)   expressly confers upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and Section  19(1)(c) empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service.  Although the conjoint effect of ss-14(3)(b), 34 and  45(2)(c)  is  that  the  appointment  of  officers  and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions,  if any, given by the State Government under  s. 34  and the regulations, if any, framed under  s.  45(2)(c).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

until  such regulations are framed or directions are  given, the Corporation may appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its duties  on such  terms and conditions as it thinks fit. [770 H: 771  A, B-D]. There  was  no  merit in the  contention  that  the  General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21, 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s. 12(c) expressly authorising him to issue it. [771 F]. Dundee  Harbour Trustees v. D. & J. Nicol, [1915] A.C.  550, 556, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated November 16, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Writ  Petition No. 1464 of 1964. Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. R.   D. Datar and S. N. Prasad, for the respondent. 768  The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,  J The respondent was a class III employee in  the statistical  department of the Mysore State  Road  Transport Corporation.   In October 1961, he was temporarily  promoted to act as statistical superintendent at Hassan.  On July 21, 1964, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting  applications for appointments to class  11  junior posts  of  (a) assistant/divisional  statisticians  and  (b) labour welfare officers on a pay of Rs. 220 per month in the pay  scale  of  Rs.  220-15-400-EB-20-500  plus  the   usual dearness  and other allowances admissible under  the  Rules. On August 11, 1964, the respondent tiled a writ petition  in the  High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation  had no  power  to  issue the notice and  praying  for  an  order quashing  it.   The  High Court  allowed  the  petition  and quashed  the notice.  The Corporation has filed this  appeal by special leave.  For the proper appreciation of the  point in issue, it is necessary to read ss. 14 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c),  34.  45(1)  and 45(2)(c) of  the  Road  Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Act No. 64 of 1950):               "14(1).  Every Corporation shall have a  Chief               Executive  Officer  or General Manager  and  a               Chief Accounts Officer appointed by the  State               Government. (2) A Corporation may appoint such               other  officers and servants as  it  considers               necessary for the efficient performance of its               functions.               (3)The  conditions of appointment and  service               and  the  scales of pay of  the  officers  and               servants of a Corporation shall-               (a)   as respects the Chief Executive  Officer               or  General  Manager and  the  Chief  Accounts               Officer be such as may be prescribed, and               (b)   as  respects  the  other  officers   and               servants  be  such  as  may,  subject  to  the               provisions  of  section 34, be  determined  by               regulations made under this Act.               19(1).  Subject to the provisions of this Act,                             a Corporation shall have power.               (a)   to  operate road transport  services  in               the State and in any extended area;               (b)   to provide for any ancillary service-,               (c)   to  provide for its  employees  suitable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             conditions  of service including  fair  wages,               establishment   of  provident   fund,   living               accommodation, places for rest and  recreation               and other amenities.               34(1).    The  State  Government  may,   after               consultation with a Corporation established by               such   Government  give  to  the   Corporation               general  instructions  to be followed  by  the               Corporation, and such instructions may include               directions   relating  to   the   recruitment,               conditions  of  service and  training  of  its               employees, wages to be paid to the               769               employees, reserves to be maintained by it and               disposal of its profits or stocks.               (2)   In  the  exercise  of  its  powers   and               performance of its duties under this Act,  the               Corporation shall not depart from any  general               instructions  issued  under  sub-section   (1)               except  with  the previous permission  of  the               State Government.               45(1).   A Corporation may, with the  previous               sanction   of  the  State   Government.   make               regulations,  not inconsistent with  this  Act               and  the  rules  made  "thereunder,  for   the               administration   of   the   affairs   of   the               Corporation.               (2)   In particular, and without prejudice  to               the  generality of the foregoing  power,  such               regulations may provide for all or any of  the               following matters, namely:--               (c)   the   conditions  of   appointment   and               service and the scales of pay of officers  and               servants  of  the Corporation other  than  the               Chief,  Executive Officer or  General  Manager               and the Chief Accounts Officer;" Admittedly,  no regulations were framed by  the  Corporation under s. 45(2)(c) prescribing the conditions of  appointment and  service  and  the scales of pay  of  its  officers  and servants.    In  the  affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of   the Corporation,  it was stated that the Corporation was  taking necessary  steps  for the framing of the  regulations.   The High  Court  following  its  earlier  decision  in  Karnakar Mangesha  Desai v. State of Mysore and others(1)  held  that until  regulations were framed by the Corporation  under  s. 45(2)(c) with the previous sanction of the State Government, the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants  and lay  down  their conditions of service.  We think  that  the judgment  of the High Court is erroneous and should  be  set aside. In  Dundee  Harbour Trustees v. D. & J.  Nicol(1),  Viscount Haldane  L. C. said: "The answer to the question  whether  a cor:)oration  created  by a statute has a  particular  power depends exclusively on whether that power has been expressly given to it by the statute regulating it, or can be  implied from  the  language  used.  The question is  simply  one  of construction  of language, and lot of presumption."  Bearing in  mind this statement of law, let is consider whether  the appellant had the power to appoint officers and servants and to  lay down their conditions of service in the  absence  of regulations  framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road  Transport Corporation Act, 1950.  The appellant is an autonomous  Cor- poration  incorporated  under  the Act for  the  purpose  of operating road transport services in the State and  extended areas.   For  the proper discharge of its functions,  it  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

necessary  for  the  Corporation  to  appoint  officers  and servants.    Section   14(2)  expressly  coners   upon   the Corporation  the incidental power to appoint  such  officers and  servants  as it considers necessary for  the  efficient per- (1) [1966] 1 Mysore Law Journal 72. (2)  [1915] A.C. 550, 556. 670 formance of its functions.  Section 19(1)(c) empowers it  to provide  for its employees suitable conditions  of  service. Section  14(3) provides that the conditions  of  appointment and  service  and  the scales of pay  of  its  officers  and servants  shall be such as may subject to the provisions  of s.  34  be  determined by regulations made  under  the  Act. Section   45(2)(c)  ’empowers  the  Corporation   to   frame regulations   with  the  previous  sanction  of  the   State Government   prescribing  the  conditions  of   appointment, service and scales of pay of the officers and servants.   If the  State  Government  issues any directions  under  s.  34 relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees, the Corporation must obey those directions.   The conjoint  effect of ss.14(3)(b),34 and 45(2)(c) is that  the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions, if any, given by the State  Government  under s.34 and the regulations,  if  any, framed  under  s.45(2)(c). But until  such  regulations  are framed or directions are given. the Corporation may  appoint such  officers  or  servants as may  be  necessary  for  the efficient  performance  of  its duties  on  such  terms  and conditions  as it thinks fit.  There is necessarily a  time- lag between the formation of the Corporation and the framing of  regulations under s. 45(2)(c).  During  the  intervening period, the Corporation must carry on the administration  of its affairs with the help of officers and servants.  In  the absence  of  clear words, it is difficult to impute  to  the legislature the intention that the Corporation would have no power   to  appoint  officers  and  servants  and  fix   the conditions   of   service  unless  the   regulations   under s.45(2)(c) are framed. There is no merit in the further contention that the General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21, 1964 in  the absence of any resolution by the  Corporation  under s.12(c)  expressly  authorising  him to issue  it.   In  the exercise  of  his general powers of management  the  General Manager  had  clearly the power to issue a  notice  inviting applications  from intending candidates, It is  not  alleged that  he made any appointment pursuant to the  notice.   The respondent  also  contended  that he had  the  right  to  be promoted to a class II junior post.  But there is nothing on the record to show that he has any vested right of promotion to the post.  Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3032 of  1967 filed  by  the  respondent  asking  for  liberty  to  adduce additional   evidence  and  to  raise  new  contentions   is dismissed. In the order dated August 17, 1967 granting special leave to the  appellant, the Court directed that the  appellant  must pay  the  costs  of the respondent in  any  event.   In  the result,  the appeal is allowed, the order of the High  Court is  set  aside  and the writ  petition  is  dismissed.   The appellant  shall  pay  the  costs  of  the  appeal  to   the respondent pursuant to the order dated August 17, 1967. R.K.P.S.                     Appeal allowed. 671

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5