Statutory Body

Employees of a statutory body whose conditions of service are not regulated by rules/regulations framed under the Statute but only by Rules or Instructions issued for its internal use, any violation thereof cannot normally be enforced through Constitutional jurisdiction (of High Court)

Such employees are governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant'; however there are exceptions to such canon: first, the statutory body has violated service rules or regulations framed by it under the powers derived from the statute and there is no adequate or efficacious remedy; second, the body has disregarded procedural requirements and principles of natural justice while taking action in a service matter; third, there is a statutory intervention

Rule of 'Master and Servant' is not applicable to those cases also where there is violation of any law holding the field and such is an independent ground for judicial review but it may be considered an extension of the third exception

Expression "violation of law" does not confine to violation of any specific provision of a statute.

Grievance of petitioner was that despite her being senior to respondent, she had been ignored for selection against the post of Deputy Registrar in next higher grade

Validity

Policy of statutory body should not be in conflict with fundamental rights for ulterior motives or mala fide

Competent authority was under obligation to determine eligibility of employees for grant of higher grade

It was also prime obligation of the functionaries to redress grievance of their subordinates and efforts should be made to bring out an egalitarian society based on Islamic concept of fairplay and social justice and authorities should never be a reason to create unnecessary hardships or unrest among the employees

Post in question was to be filled on promotion basis out of the existing employees and, therefore, selection of respondent was arbitrary

High Court declared the placing of name of respondent for promotion against the post of Deputy Registrar in supersession of petitioner, as illegal, unjurisdictional and against the principles of promotion policy

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Concept that statutory body was entitled to more indulgence was misconceived and based upon wrong notion of correct legal position

High Court took serious notice of the fact that cases of public authorities, statutory bodies and of Government were being negligently prosecuted as a result whereof, said authorities as also public-at-large were suffering irreparable loss and hoped that statutory body would proceed against the persons (Officials) in accordance with law who were responsible for not prosecuting the present case diligently.