Holding

SCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12, and therefore the High Court's direction under Article 226 is not maintainable.

Summary

Employees of the State Council of Education, Research and Training (SCERT) filed a writ petition seeking pension, gratuity and other benefits, alleging that SCERT was a "State" under Article 12 and thus bound to implement Regulation 67. The Delhi High Court held SCERT to be a State and directed it to extend the benefits. The Lt. Governor appealed, arguing that SCERT, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not a State and that the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court examined the tests for "State" status—financial, functional and administrative control—and found that the Government’s grant does not amount to pervasive control over SCERT. Consequently, SCERT was held not to be a State or other authority within Article 12, making the High Court's direction untenable. The Court set aside the High Court’s orders and dismissed the writ petitions, awarding costs.

Issues considered

Whether SCERT qualifies as a 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 against SCERT.
Whether Regulation 67 of SCERT Rules and Regulations could be enforced to grant pension and gratuity benefits to the employees.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 226
Societies Registration Act, 1860

Subjects

Article 12State definitionSCERTArticle 226Writ jurisdictionRegulation 67Pension benefitsSocieties Registration ActFinancial control test

Judgment

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. A
v.
V.K. SODHI AND ORS.

AUGUST 14, 2007

[P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 12 and 226-State Council of Education, Research and Training
(SCERT)-Held: Is not 'State' or other authority within the meaning of C
Article 12 and normally not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under
Article 226-Therefore, there is no reason to issue any writ or direction to
authorities ofGNCT, Delhi with regard to pension, gratuity, general provident
fund etc. to the employees concerned-State Council of Education, Research
and Training Rules and Regulations-Regulation 67. D
The respondent-employees of the State Council of Education Research
and Training (SCERT), an institution set up to assist the State Government
of Delhi in the matter of promoting education within the State, filed a writ
petition before the High Court praying for a writ or direction to the appellants,
inter alia, to extend the benefits of pension, gratuity and general provident E
fund on retirement in favour of the writ petitioners. The appellants contended
before the High Court that SCERT was not "State" within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it was merely a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, that it mainly relied on the grant by
the Government for the purpose of achieving its objects, was formed without
the sanction or approval of the State Government and was not in a position to F
spend any part of the grant by way of additional benefits to its employees. The
High Court held that SCERT was 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution oflndia and the appellants were bound to implement the policy
decision ofSCERT as reflected in Regulation 67. Aggrieved, the Lt Governor
of Delhi and others filed CA No. 3272 of 2003/SCERT. Later SCERT filed G
CA No. 8132 of2003 challenging the subsequent direction of the High Court
given in another writ petition.

Th~ appellants, besides reiterating the plea raised before the High Court

1027 H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A that SCERT was not 'State', submitted that Regulation 67 ofSCERT Rules
and Regulations which provided that the terms and tenure of service of the
academic staff of the Council would remain the same as available for the
academic staff of NCERT was amended by Notification dated 7.12.1999
retrospectively to the effect that the terms and tenure of service of academic
and other staff of the Council should remain the same as avaihible for the
B academic and other staff of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. It
was also brought to the notice of the Court that the unamended Regulation
67 had never been implemented in respect of any of its employees and there
was no case of any discrimination in implementation of that Regulation. >' -.....

C On the question whether in the context of the function entrusted to
SCERT, the rules and bye-laws that govern it and financial position enjoyed
by it, SCERT can be said to be financially, functionally and administratively
dominated by or under the control of the Government

Allowing the appeals, the Court
D
HELD:l.l. SCERT is not a State or other authorty within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court has not independently
discussed the relevant rules governing the functioning and administration of
SCERT. [Para 141 (1037-F, GJ

E 1.2. There is no simple litmus test, to determine whether an entity is
'state' .or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. Various facets of the foundation and the working of the entity would
be rele\'.ant in determining the question in the context of the duties entrusted
to it or taken up by it for per.formance. In view of the decision in Pradeep
Kumar Biswas* each case has to be considered with reference to the facts
F available for determining whether the body concerned is 'State' or other
authority wit.hin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. So
considered, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over the
working of SCERT. It does not have financial control in the sense that once
the finances are made available to SCERT, the administration of those
G finances is left to SCERT and there is no further governmental control. After
all the very formation of an independent society under the Societies
Registration Act would also suggest that the intention was not to make the
body a mere appendage of the State. The provisions of the SCERT Rules and
Regulationes and Societies-Registration Act, 1860 indicate that SCERT is
subservient to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act rather than
H to the State Government and that the intention was to keep SCERT as an
I
}._.
.)
LT.GOVERNOROFDELHiv. V.K.SODHI 1029
independent body and the role of the State Government cannot be compared to A
that of the Central Government in the case of Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research.
(Paras 9, 14 and 13) (1033-D; 1037-H; 1038-A, B, C; 1037-EJ

*Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., B
(2002) 5 sec 111, relied on.

Chander Mohan Khanna v. NC.E.R.T. & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 578 and
Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, (196713 SCR 377, referred to.

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCC 485, stands already C
overruled.

2.1. In the case of bodies like SCERT, the court cannot ignore the
financial i'rplication of implimenting the directions that 4t is called upon to
issue. The ~bject of SCERT is laudable and it has to coordinate and promote
education in the State. Its resources are limited and the main income is by D
way of grant from the State Government When SCERT pleads that it cannot
spend the whole of the grant or a major portion of the grant in paying salaries
and emoluments to its employes and if it does so, that may tend to frustrate
the very object with which the society was formed, it is an argument that has
to be considered weighty by a court called upon to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of education, surely, E
the interests of the society at large should prevail and issue ofany direction
that may endanger such interests must be done with extreme caution and only
after careful deliberation. (Para 16)

2.2. Once it is held that SCERT is not State or other authority within F
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and normally not amenable to
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, it is not neccessary to pursue further the other aspects such as the
non-implementation of Regulation 67 as it stood earlier. Suffice it to say, that
the direction issued by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside.
(Para 17) G

CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3272of2003.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2002 of the High Court
of Delhi aL New Delhi in C. W.P. No. 3693/1998.
H
WITH
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A C.A. No. 8132/2003

R. Mohan ASG, K.C. Kaushik, Rahul Kaushik and Ashok Kumar Singh
for the Appellants.

R.P. Bhatt, Sarvesh Bisaria, P.K. Pandey and Usha Reddy for the
B Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. 1. In this appeal, the challenge is to the ... ....(
decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the State Council of Education,
c Research and Training ('SCERT' for short) is a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution oflndia and the conclusion that the Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi, SCERT and others are bound to implement the policy
decision of SCERT as reflected in Regulation 67 framed by it as also the
Advanced Career Promotion Scheme. But a caveat was entered that those
D who have not been absorbed, cannot be given the benefit of the decision
unless they·are absorbed permanently in SCERT. The writ petition was allowed
.. .. ~
~ '

on the above terms with costs.
..;.
....
2. We may notice that the writ petition was not allowed as prayed for
nor was a mandamus as such issued to the respondents. The prayer in the
E writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable
writ, order or direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of pension,
gratuity and general provident fund on retirement in favour of the writ
petitioners, to provide facilities of loan, advances for betterment of career,
status and life in terms of housing loan, car loan, computer loan etc. in favour
F of the writ petitioners and also to extend the benefits of the same pay and
allowances in favour of the writ petitioners as are admissible to the academic
staff of National Council of Educational, Research and Training ('NCERT' for
short) at par or to pass any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and
proper. It may be noticed that Regulation 67 ofSCERT Rules and Regulations
which provided that the terms and tenure of service of the academic staff at
G the Council shall remain the same as available for the academic staff ofNCERT
was amended by notification dated 7 .12.1999 retrospectively to the effect that
the terms and tenure of service of academic and other staff of the Council
should remain the same as available for the academic and other staff of the
Directorate of Education, G .N .C. T. of Delhi with such modifications that may ,._
H be specifically adopted by the Executive Committee from time to time. This
amendment was not challenged in the writ petitions in the context of the
i....

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI v. V.K. SODHI [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] 1031

.prayers in the writ petition. But in the context, it is clear that the High Court A
has issued a direction to SCERT to implement Regulation 67 as it stood prior
to its amendment in respect of a class of employees and to implement certain
resolutions adopted by the Governing Committee of SCERT. We may
incidentally notice and it is the common case, that the unamended Regulation
67 had never been implemented in SCERT in respect of any of its employees B
and there is no case of any discrimination in the implementation of that
Regulation.

3. While allowing the writ petition, the High Court negatived the plea
of SCERT that it was merely a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act and it was not a State within the meaning of Arti~le 12 of C
the Constitution of India. The High Court also overruled the plea of SCERT
that it mainly relied on the grant by the Government for the purpose of
achieving the objects with which the society was formed and without the
sanction or approval of the State Government, it was not in a position to
spend any part of the grant by way of additional benefits to its employees. D
It is feeling aggrieved by the decision thus rendered by the High Court that
this Appeal has been filed.

4. We may notice here that the High Court held that the decision by this
Court in Chander Mohan Khanna v. N.C.E.R.T. & Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 578
could not govern the case of SCERT in view of the decision in. Pradeep E
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., [2002] 5 S.C.C.
111 and in that view, it was held that the Society was a State and that the
amendment of the Regulation would not affect the employees who had joined
SCERT prior to the date of the amendment.

5. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was F
clearly in error in not properly examining the question whether SCERT was
a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India even going by the principle laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas 's
case (supra). It was further submitted that the High Court has given no
reasons for holding that the decision in Chander Mohan Khanna could not G
be applied to the case in view of the position emerging from the bye-laws of
both the societies. It was submitted that going by the tests laid down, SCERT
was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which was a
master of its affairs and which was not subservient to the Government and
that the Government did not have effective or pervasive control over the H
working of the society which was governed by a Committee constituted by
./'

1032 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A its bye-laws and the mere fact that the Government was making available ft.
grants to SCERT and SCERT was entrusted with the looking after of a facet
of education, which was part of the duty of the State and the existence of
some ex officio members in the Committee are not sufficient to uphold the plea
that SCERT was a State especially since in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case, the
B decisfon in Chander Mohan Khanna had not been overruled and only one
aspect relied on in Chander Mohan Khanna decision had been found to be
not sustainable. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the larger
bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case had specifically overruled Sabhajit
Tewary 's case [ 1975] l S.C.C. 485 and this meant that the decision in Chander
Mohan Khanna was no more good law and the High Court was right in its
C conclusion on that basis. It is .further submitted that going by the tests laid
down by this Court in various decisions, it has to be held that SCERT was
a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
in view of the financial control the State Government had over the Society
and the other circumstances relied on by the High Court. Thus, it was
D submitted that the High Court was justified in directing the implementation
of Regulation 67 as it stood in respect of the writ petitioners.

6. On merits, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the High
Court was in error in ignoring the financial implications for the society while
issuing the direction and that the court is not entitled to ignore the financial
E constraints of a society like SCERT while called upon to issue a direction to
it to incur additional expenditure, eating up a major portion of the grant that
is made available to it by the Go.vemment. It is submitted that if a major
portion of the grant is utilized for salaries and allowances and other benefits
to the employees, the very object with which the society was formed would
F be defeated and certainly, a court is bound to consider that aspect while
issuing directions for incurring of financial liability. It is also pointed out that
Regulation 67 had been amended with retrospective effect and the same was
not in challenge before the High Court and there was no justification in the
High Court holding that the non existant Regulation 67 as it existed prior to
G the amendment, should be implemented in respect of the writ petitioners.

7. These submissions are sought to be met by the respondents by
contending that the employees were entitled to benefit on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work', that the original Regulation 67 applied to employees.
who were in service prior to its amendment and that the High Court was right
H in holding that the retrospective amendment of Regulation 67 could not affect
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI v. V.K. SODHI [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 1033

the employees who were in place before the date of the amendment. Learned A
counsel further submitted that the direction issued by the High Court was
only to direct SCERT to implement its own resolutions without waiting for
governmental clearance for their implementation and considering that SCERT
was an autonomous body, the direction in that behalf was justified. It was
thus submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
B
8. Civil Appeal No. 8132 of 2003 is filed by SCERT challenging a
direction subsequently issued by the High Court in another writ petition
following the decision of the Division Bench giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
3272 of 2003. The fate of this Appeal depends upon the decision in Civil
Appeal No. 3272 of 2003 and no separate discussion of the facts therein is C
needed.

9. As the decisions of this Court show, there is no simple litmus test,
to determine whether an entity is a State or other authority within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. What is clear from the decisions
is that the various facets of the foundation and the working of the entity D
would be relevant in determining the question in the context of the duties
entrusted to it or taken up by it for performance. It is in that context that in
the latest larger Bench decision in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), the majority
summed up the position in paragraph 40 thus:-

"The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in E
Ajay Hasia are. not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls
within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a
State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case
would be - whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established,
the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated F
by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be
particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is
found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand,
when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or
otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State." G
What therefore falls for consideration is whether in the context of the functions
entrusted to it, the rules and bye-laws that govern it and the financial position
enjoyed by it, SCERT can be said to be financially, functionally and
administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government.
H
10. It is in this context that the decision in Chander Mohan Khanna
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A (supra) assumes importance. It appears to be common case thatSCERT and ,. _
NCER T are organizations parallel in nature and the High Court has also
recorded:

"It is accepted that the third respondent (SCERT) was formed basically
on the same lines as NCERT."
B
This Court in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra) on discussing the relevant
p:-ovisions of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules o.fNCERT came
to the conclusion that NCERT was not a State or other authority within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This Court after quoting
C from the decision of the High Court regarding the relevant Rules of NCERT
stated:

"The object of the NCERT as seen from the above analysis is to assist
and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the
implementation of the Governmental policies and major programmes in
D the field of education particularly school education. The NCERT
undertakes several kinds of programmes and activities connected with
the coordination of research extension services and training,
dissemination of improved educational techniques, collaboration in
the educational programmes. It also undertakes preparation and
publication of books, materials, periodicals and other literature. These
E activities are not wholly related to Government functions. The affairs
of the NCERT are conducted by the Executive Committee comprising
of Government servants and educationists. The Executive Committee·
would enter into arrangements with Government, public or private
organisations or individuals in furtherance of the objectives for
F implementation of programmes. The funds of the NCERT consist of:
(i) grants made by the Government, (ii) contribution from other sources
and (iii) income from its own assets. It is free to apply its income and
property towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation
of the programmes. The Government control is confined only to the
proper utilisation of the grant.. The NCERT is thus largely an
G
autonomous body."

Their Lordships concluded that in their Lordships' opinion having regard to
the indications to which they had called attention earlier, NCERT did not
qualify as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The provisions
H of the Memorandum of Association and thr bye-laws of SCERT are more or
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI v. V.K. SODHI [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 103 5

less the same as that ofNCERT. Whereas NCERT was to assist the National A
Government in the matter of coordinating education, SCERT was to assist the
State Government.in the matter of promoting education within the State of
Delhi. It is also governed by an Executive Committee. The income and property
of the Council however derived has to be applied towards the promotion of
the objectives set forth in the Memorandum of Association. The membership B
of the Council included ex officio the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, the
Executive Councilor (Education) of Delhi Administration and various
educational authorities. The Executive Committee was to be the main authority
of the Council and it was entitled to create or constitute other authorities for
carrying out the objectives. The affairs of the Committee shall be administered
subject to the rules and orders of the Council by an Executive Committee C
which was to consist of various officers of the Delhi Administration. The
Committee had the power, with the previous approval of the Council, to frame
Regulations including Regulations regarding terms and tenure of appointments,
emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service
of the officers and the staff of the Council. The Council was to be fully
financed by the Government and the funds of the Council was to consist of D
grants made by the Administration of Delhi/Delhi State and Government of
India for the furtherance of the objects of the Council, contributions from
other sources, income from assets and publication of the Council and receipt
of the Council from other sources. The accounts had to be audited annually
by Chartered Accountants and to be approved by the Annual General Meeting E
of the Council. The State Government had no role to play on the administration
of the Council or in the working of the Council or over its finances, once the
grant was made.

11. The two elements, one, of a function of the State, namely, the
coordinating of education and the other, of the Council being dependant on F
the funding by the State, satisfied two of the tests indicated by the decisions
of this Court. But, at the same time, from that alone it could not be assumed
that SCERT is a State. It has to be noted that though finance is made available
by the State, in the matter of administration of that finance, the Council is
supreme. The administration is also completely with the Council. There is no G
governmental interference or control either financially, functionally or
administratively, in the working of the Council. These were the aspects taken
note of in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra) to come to the conclusion that
NCERT is not a State or other authority within the meaning of ArtkJe 12 of
the Constitution of India. No doubt, in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra), the
Bench noted that the fact that education was a State function could not make H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A any difference. This part of the reasoning in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra)
case has been specifically disapproved by the majority in Pradeep Kumar
Biswas (supra). The majority noted that the objects of forming Indian Institute
of Chemical Biology was with the view of entrusting it with a function that
is fundamental to the governance of the country and quoted with approval
B the following passage in Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 377:

"The State, as defined in Article 12, is thus comprehended to include
bodies created for the purpose of promoting the educational and
economic interests of the people."

The majority then stated:
c
"We are in respectful agreement with this statement of the law. The
observations to the contrary in Chander Mohan Khanna V. NCERT
relied on by the learned Attorney-General in this context, do not
represent the correct legal position."

D 12. But, it may be noticed that in conclusion, the majority onlY. overruled
the decision in Sabhajit Tewary (supra) and did not say anything further
regarding the decision in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra).

13. We also find substantial differences in the two set ups. Sabhajit
Tewary (supra), after referring to the rules of the Council of Scientific and
E Industrial Research which was registered under the Societies Registration
Act, concluded that it was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. While overruling the said decision, the majority in Pradeep
Kumar Biswas (supra) took the view that the dominant role played by the
Government of India in the governing body and the ubiquitous control of the
p Government in the Council and the complete subjugation of the Governing
Body to the will of the Central Government, the inability of the Council to lay
down or change the terms and conditions of service of its employees and the
inability to alter any bye-law without the approval of the Government of India
and the owning by the Central Government of the assets and funds of the
Council though normally owned by the society, all indicated that there was
G effective and pervasive control over the functioning of the Council and since
it was also entrusted with a Governmental function, the justifiable conclusion
was that it was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
The majority also noticed that on a winding up of that Council, the entire
assets were to vest in the Central Government and that was also. a relevant
H indication. Their Lordships in the majority also specifically overruled as a
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI v. V.K. SODHI [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 103 7

legal principle that a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act A
or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, is by that reason alone
excluded from the concept of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. In
the case of SCERT, in addition to the operational autonomy of the Executive
Committee, it could also amend its bye-laws subject to the provisions of the
Delhi Societies Registration Act though with the previous concurrence of the B
Government of Delhi and that the proceedings of the Council are to be made
available by the Secretary for inspection of the Registrar of Societies as per
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The records and proceedings
of the Council have also to be made available for inspection by the Registrar
of Societies. In the case of dissolution of SCERT, the liabilities and assets are
to be taken over at book value by the Government of Delhi which had to C
appoint a liquidator for completing the dissolution of the Body. The creditors'
loans and other liabilities of SCERT shall have preference and bear a first
charge on the assets of the Council at the time of dissolution. This is not an
unconditional vesting of the assets on dissolution with the Government. It
is also provided that the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860
had to be complied with in the matter of filing iist of office-bearers every year D
with the Registrar and the carrying out of the amendments in accordance with
the procedure laid down in the Act of 1860 and the dissolution being in te~s
of Sections 13 and 14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and making all
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act applicable to the Society.
These provisions, in our view, indicate that SCERT is subservient to the E
provisions of the Societies Registration Act rather than to the State Government
and that the intention was to keep SCERT as an independent body and the
role of the State Government cannot be compared to that of the Central
Government in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.

14. As we understand it, even going by paragraph 40 of the judgment F
in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), which we have quoted above, we have to
consider the cumulative effect of all the facts available in the case. So
considered, we are inclined to hold that SCERT is not a State or other
authority within the meaning of Article 12 of th~ Constitution of India. As we
see it, the High Court has not independently discussed the relevant rules
governing the functioning and administration of SCERT. It has proceeded on G
the basis that in the face of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) decision, the
decision in Chander Mohan Khanna (supra) must be taken to be overruled
and no further discussion of the question is necessary. But, in our view, even
going by Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), each case has to be considered
with reference to the facts available for determining whether the body concerned H
A
4=

1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A is a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution .i
of India. So co-nsidered, we find that the Government does not have deep and
pervasive control over the working of SCERT. It does not have financial
control in the sense that once the finances_ are made available to it, the
administration of those finances is left to SCERT and there is no further
governmental control. In this situation, we accept the submission on behalf
B of the appellants and hold that SCERT is not a State or other authority within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. After all, the very
formation of an independent society under the Societies Registration Act
would also suggest that the intention was not to make the body a mere .,
appendage of the State. We reverse the finding of the High Court on this
c aspect.

15. Once we hold that SCERT is not a State or other authority within ~.---

the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, we do not find ourselves
persuaded to issue any such direction as sought for by the writ petitioners
(the respondents herein). In fact, it becomes unnecessary to go into the
D question of validity of the amendment of Regulation 67, the effect of the
uniform non implementation of Regulation 67 as it stood earlier, and the effect
of the absence of a challenge in the writ petition to the amendment to the
Regulation itself. It is also not necessary to go into the question whether
SCERT should seek the permission of the Government for incurring additional
expenditure in terms of service benefits to its employees.
E
16. It appears to us that in the case of bodies like SCERT, the court
cannot ignore the financial implications of implementing the directions that it
is called upon to issue. The object of SCERT is laudable and it has to
coordinate and promote education in the State. Its resources are limited and
F the main income is by way of grant from the State Government. When SCERT
pleads that it cannot spend the whole of the grant or a major portion of the
grant in paying salaries and emoluments to its employees and if it does. so,
-f- r
that may tend to frustrate the very object with which the society was formed,
it is an argument that has to be considered weighty by a court called upon
to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A court
G cannot issue a direction which would tend to frustrate the very object with
which a society like SCERT is formed or a body like SCERT is created. After
all, there may be a point of time in a welfare State where the right of the
employees must be subservient to the right of the society. In the matter of
education, surely, the interests of the society at large should prevail and issue
of any direction that may endanger such interests must be done with extreme
H
LT.GOVERNOROFDELHiv. V.K. SODHI [BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] 1039

caution and only after careful deliberation. A
17. In our view that SCERT is not a State or other authority within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and normally not amenable to the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
we do not find it necessary to pursue further, these other aspects. Suffice it
to say, that the direction issued by the High Couft'cannot be sustained. B
18. ln the result, both the appeals are allowed and the directions issued
by the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ
petitioners are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to
suffer their respective costs.
c
RP. Appeals allowed.

-'
''