Holding

A statute under the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act is not valid or enforceable until it is published in the Official Gazette; assent alone is insufficient and may be withdrawn, so the teachers are not entitled to the promotion benefits.

Summary

The Rajendra Agricultural University framed a statute for a time‑bound promotion scheme for its teachers, which the Chancellor assented to under Section 36(2) of the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987, but the statute was never published in the Official Gazette. The Chancellor later withdrew his assent, declaring the statute still‑born and non‑existent because of the lack of publication and policy considerations. A group of teachers filed writ petitions seeking enforcement of the promotion scheme; the Patna High Court held that the Chancellor could not recall his assent and that publication was a mere formality, thereby creating a vested right. The Supreme Court examined Sections 35 and 36 of the Act and held that publication in the Official Gazette is a mandatory step in the statute‑making process; until such publication, the statute is incomplete and may be withdrawn. Consequently, the teachers were not entitled to the benefits of the un‑published statute. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a statute made under Section 36 of the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 and assented by the Chancellor becomes effective and enforceable without publication in the Official Gazette as required by Section 36(4).
Whether the teachers are entitled to the benefit of the time‑bound promotion scheme contained in the un‑published statute.

Subjects

statute makingofficial gazette publicationmandatory vs directory provisiontime‑bound promotionservice lawuniversity statutesassent withdrawalvested rightsadministrative law

Judgment

(2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1168

A RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
v. )cc(°'-.

ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6937 of 2004)

NOVEMBER 30, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]

Service Law:

c Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 - s. 36 - Statute
made under - Provided for time bound promotion scheme for
teachers - Statute assented to, by the Chancellor, but not
published in the Official Gazette - Held: The statute did not
come into effect and was not enforceable in absence of its
D publication in the Official Gazette, which was mandatorily
required in terms of s.36(4) - Moreso, the Chancellor withdrew
~
his assent in respect of the said statute by a reasoned order
- Consequently, respondents-teachers not entitled to benefit
,.,, time-bound promotion scheme under the statute.
E Appellant university was governed by the Bihar
Agricultural Universities Act, 1987. The Board of
Management of the University framed Statute providing
for time bound promotion Scheme for its teachers. The
Chancellor of the University gave his as!?ent in respect
F of the said Statute under section 36(2) of the Act ..
•
However, the statute was not published in the Official
Gazette, as the matter was under reconsideration. Later,
on reconsideration, the Chancellor withdrew his assent
in respect of the said statute holding that it was still-born,
G non-est and never came into force for want of
publication in the official Gazette.

The respondents .. teachers filed writ petitions
challenging the order passed by the Chancellor which
H 1168
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK 1169
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS.
was allowed by the High Court on the ground that once A
..-.,. the Chancellor gave his assent to a statute under section
36 of the Act, he did not have any power to recall the
assent. It also held that publication of the new statute in
the official Gazette was only a formality, and when th~
Chancellor gave his assent to the statute framed by the B
Board of Management, a vested right was c·reated in the
teachers employed by the appellant-University to receive
time bound promotion in terms of the said statute and it
could not be denied to them.

The questions which thus arose for consideration in c
the present appeals were: (i) whether, in absence of
publication of the statute in the Official Gazette, as
required by section 36 (4) of the Act, a statute made under
section 36(1) and assented under section 36(2), came
into effect and became enforceable and (ii) whether the D
.,,.
respondents were entitled to the benefit of Time-Bound
Promotion Scheme.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD:1.1. Section 35 of the Bihar Agricultural E
Universities Act, 1987 deals with and enumerates the
topics on which statutes can be framed by the University.
... Section 35(25) provides that subject to the provisions of
the Act, the Statutes may provide for the conditions of
" service, remuneration and allowances to be paid to F
teachers employed under the University. Section 36 of
the Act, on the other hand, provides how statutes are to

- be made. Section 36 lays down three steps for making
or amending a Statute. They are: (a) the Statute should
be made by the Board of Management in the manner G
specified in sub-section (1); (b) the Statute should be
approved and assented by the Chancellor and (c) the
Statute so made and assented, shall be published in the
official Gazette. [Paras 8 and 9] [1176-E-F; 1177-G-H;
1178-A-B] H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 1.2. When the Act lays down the manner in which a
),,,,......
statute under the Act should be made, it shall have to be
made in that manner and no other. The requirement that
the statute should be published in the official Gazette, is
an integral part of the process of 'statute making' under
B section 36 of the Act. It is mandatory and not directory.
Until publication in the official Gazette, the statute will be
considered as still being in the process of being made,
even if it had received the assent of the Chancellor. A
'statute in the making' or a 'statute-in-process' is
incomplete and is neither valid nor effective as a statute.
c So long as the statute is not completely made, but is still
in the process of being made, it can be cancelled or
withdrawn or modified, without the need for 'publication'
of such cancellation, withdrawal or modification. [Para 9]
[1178-8-F]
D '{
1.3. Many of the stdtutes which the Appellant-
University is empowered to frame deal with topics which
fall in public domain, affecting or relevant to general
public. If the Statutes .made on these topics are not
E published in the Official Gazette, the concerned persons
may never come to know about them. Therefore, the
provision contained in Section 36(4) requiring publication
of Statutes in the Official Gazette, which applies to all ...
statutes framed by the University, has to be treated /

F mandatory. The fact that a particular statute may not
concern the general public, but may affect only a
specified class of employees, is not a ground to exclude
the applicability of the mandatory requirement of
publication in the Official Gazette, to that statute in the
G absence of an exception in Section 36(4) of the Act. [Para
12] [1180-C, G-H; 1181-A-B]
...
,:;.,
1.4. The respondents can not by importing the
reasons for making a statutory provision, or the object
of making a statutory provision, attempt to defeat the
H
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK1171
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS.

specific and unambiguous mandatory requirements of A
-~.,.,.
that statutory provision. Several reasons might have
contributed to making of a statutory provision providing
for publication of all statutes in the official Gazette. All
those reasons may not apply or exist in regard to making
of an individual statute. But once the law lays down that B
publication of a statute in the Official Gazette is a part of
the process of making a statute, the object of making
such a provision for publication recedes into the
background and becomes irrelevant, and· on the other
).
hand, fulfilment of the requirement to make public the c
statute by publication in the Official Gazette becomes
mandatory and binding. [Para 13] [1181-0-G]

1.5. It is not possible to accept the contention that the
statute in question came into effect or became
enforceable even in the absence of publication in the D
).- official Gazette. The High Court committed an error in
holding that the teachers became entitled to the benefit
of the statute relating to time-bound promotion scheme,
when the said statute made by the Board of Management
was assented to by the Chancellor even though it was E
not published in the Gazette. The High Court also
committed an error in observing that the non-publication
was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it ignored the valid

- ~ reasons assigned by the Chancellor for withdrawing his
assent to the incomplete statute, in his order. [Para 16)
[1186-0-G]

B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka 1987 (1) SCC 658
F

and /. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Manda/ Revenue
Officer, AP 1996 (6) SCC 634, relied on.
G
Case Law Reference :
-~ 1987 (1) sec ssa relied on Para 14
1996 (6) sec 634 relied on Para 15
H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6937 of 2004. kr->o

From the Judgment & Order dated 18.7.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 1007 of 1998.
B WITH

C.A. Nos. 6933, 6934, 6935, 6936, 6938 of 2004.

K.K. Rai, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the Appellant.
c P.S. Mishra, M.K. Choudhary, Namita Choudhary, Dr. S.K.
Verma, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, B.B. Singh for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
R.V. RAVEENDRAN: ~- 1. The issue involved in these
~
appeals is whether a statute made under section 36 of the Bihar
Agricultural Universities Act, 1987, providing for a benefit to the
teaching staff, for which assent has been given by the
Chancellor can be enforced in the absence of publication in the
E
official Gazette.

2. The appellant is an agricultural university governed by
the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 (for short 'Act'). To
provide relief to its teaching staff who were facing stagnation ~
~
F in service, the Board of Management of the Appellant University
at its meeting dated 22.7.1989 framed a Statute providing for
a Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The proposed Statute was
placed before the Chancellor of the University· for his assent
.l.
under section 36(2) of the Act and such assent was given on
G 17.8.1991. In pursuance of it, the university issued a notification
(N.No.106/RAU) dated 4.9.1991, making an addition in Statute
14.1 in chapter XIV of the Statutes of the Rajendra Agricultural
J.~
University providing for a time bound promotion of (i) Assistant
Professors/Junior Scientists to the post of Associate Professor/
H Senior Scientist and (ii) Associate Professor/Senior Scientist
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK.1173
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
to the post of University Professor/Chief Scientist. The said A
addition in Statute 14.1 was not published in the Official
Gazette, as the matter was u"nder reconsideration in view of the
decision taken by the state government to implement the pay
scales of University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') in
regard to the teachers of the agricultural universities. The B
Chancellor also passed an order, which was communicated to
the Vice-Chancellors of the Agricultural Universities vide letter
dated 6.2.1992, that the operation of the said statute be kept
pending till further orders as the whole issue was under review
and further consideration. c
3. Feeling aggrieved, the Rajendra Agricultural University
Shikshak Manch, an association of teachers, filed a writ petition
(CWJ.C No.9622/1992) challenging the said order dated
6.2.1992 of the Chancellor. and seeking directions to the
University to consider the cases of its members for promotion D
in terms of the additional statute as per Notification dated
4.9.1991. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by
order dated 17.3.1994 held that the notification dated 4.9.1991
relating to the additional statute did not come into effect as it
was not published in the official gazette and therefore, no right E
could be claimed on the basis of such unpublished statute. The
writ petition was therefore dismissed with a clarification that the
impugned order dated 6.2. 1992 being an interim order, the
I + dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the
Chancellor taking appropriate final decision on the issue in F
accordance with law. Two writ petitions filed before the Ranchi
Bench of the High Court [CWJC No.3096 of 1992 (R) and
CWJC No.2740/1995 (R)] were disposed of with a direction ·
that the issue raised by the writ petitioners may be considered
and decided by the Chancellor after hearing the parties. G

4. Thereafter, the Chancellor considered the
representations, gave a hearing and made an order dated
19.3.1996 holding that the Statute was still-born, non est and
never came into force for want of publication in the official H

•'•
1174_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Gazette required under section 36 of the Act. The said order
,,...~-
noted that several universities had earlier adopted time bound ~
promotion schemes, but subsequently abandoned the schemes
as they were found to be anomalous vis a vis the UGC scheme
of career advancement and the UGC scheme of placement of . ~

B lecturers in the senior scales of pay; and that in their place,
schemes/statutes in conformity with the UGC schemes, were
framed on the recommendations of the State Government. He
also gave the following reasons as to why the time bound
· promotion scheme under the proposed Statute could not be J....
"
c implemented in the agricultural universities of Bihar :

"It was brought to my notice that ICAR sent a directive to
the Vice-Chancellors of the Agricultural Universities that the
ICAR can bear the cost on account of promotion .under
Career Advancement Scheme in built in new UGC scale
D but beyond that, the ICAR will not entertain any request for
-.\'
fund for any other kind of promotion or selection. In the
ICAR Scheme also there are in built provisions for
promotion. Therefore, introduction of the Time Bound
Promotion Scheme along with ICAR scheme may
E (amount) to double benefits.

It may be pointed out that there is no provisions for Time
Bound Promotion under the UGC scheme nor ICAR.
envisaged each scheme. The Agricultural Universities and ~

F the State Government have accepted the terms and :
conditions of the UGC/ICAR while implementing the
revised UGC scale of pay for Agricultural Universities, and
in the terms and conditions of the Government orders time
to time issued by the department of Agriculture of the
State Govt., it has been the consistent policy that ICAR
G
guidelines ·will be followed. Further ICAR has clearly
directed the Agricultural Universities that it will not bear any
.r--
burden on account of Time Bound Promotion to the
teachers appointed/deputed even for ICAR funded
Schemes."
,H
RAJE:.NDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK1175
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
The said order dated 19.3.1996 of the Chancellor also recorded A
~ .. that it was subject to the decision in the Appeal (LPA No.35/
94) pending against the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 17.3.1994. The said Letters Patent Appeal was
subsequently dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court
)n 11.9.1997, holding that the Teachers association was not B
entitled to maintain a writ petition relating to a ser\/1ce dispute
of the university employees. Liberty was however reserved to
the individual teachers to seek relief, if they were aggrieved.

5. Thereafter, several individual teachers filed writ petitions
..t.
challenging the order dated 19.3.1996 passed by the
c
Chancellor, and seeking relief in terms of the notification dated
4.9.1991. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the batch
of writ petitions filed by the respondents - teachers. It held that
once the chancellor gave his assent to a statute under section
36 of the Act, he did not have any power to recall the assent. It D
held that issuing a notification buf refusing to publish the
notification in the Gazette was improper and violative of the rule
of law. The High Court also held that publication of the new
statute in the official Gazette was only a formality, and when the
Chancellor gave his assent to the statute framed by the Board E
of Management, a vested right was created in the teachers
employed by the University to receive time bound promotions
in terms of the said statute and it could not be denied to them.
~
The High Court therefore declared that even though the
notification dated 4.9.1991 containing the amendment to the F
statute, was not published in the official Gazette, the teachers
are entitled to the benefit under the notification, with effect from
1.4.1987, as per the notification.

· 6. The said order is challenged in these ·appeals. It is
G
contended by the appellant University that a resolution of the
Board of Management to make a statute, even if assented to
~~;
by the Chancellor, would not be a 'statute' made under the Act,
unless it was notified in the official gazette. Further, as the
I

assent had been withdrawn by the Chancellor by a reasoned
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A order dated: 19.3.1996, there was no 'statute' at all. It was also
contended that a new Career Advancement Scheme for
promotion· of teachers had been implemented by making
amendments in the relevant statutes of the university in
accordance with the revised UGC pay scales; and the
B respondents having already opted for the UGC scheme of pay
scale which was introduced on 30.3.1990, the proposed Time
(
Bound Promotion Scheme would be inapplicable, even If the
statute had been notified.

C 7. On the contentions urged, the following question arises
for consideration: •'

(i) In the absence of publication of the statute in the
Official Gazette, as required by section 36 (4) of the
Act, whether a statute made under section 36(1)
D and assented under section 36(2), came into effect
and became· enforceable?

(ii) Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit
of Time-Bound Promotion Scheme under the
notification dated 4.9.1991.
E
8. Section 35 of the Act deals with and enumerates the
topics on which statutes can be framed by the University.
$ection 35(25) provides that subject to the provisions of the Act,
the Statutes may provide for the conditions of service,
F remuneration arid allowances to be paid to teachers employed
under the University. Section 36 of the Act provides how
statutes are to be made. It is extracted below:

"36. Statutes how made: (1) the Board of Management
G may, from time to time, make new or additional statutes
or may amen~ or repeal the statutes in the manner_
hereinafter prdvided in this section.

Provided that ,the Board of Management shall not make
any Statute of any amendment to a Statute affecting the
H statutes, powers or constitution of any existing authority until

-,
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK 1177
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
such authority has been given an opportunity of expression A
on opinion on the proposal and any opinion so expressed
shall be in writing and shall be considered by the Board
of Management;

Provided further that no Statute shall be made by the Board B
of Management affecting the discipline of instruction
education and examination except after consultation with
the Academic Council.

(2) Every new Statute or addition to the Statute or any
amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the c
approval of the Chancellor, who may assent thereto or
withhold assent or remit the same to the hoard of
Management for reconsideration.

(3) A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an D
~-
existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has been
assented by the Chancellor.

(4) All Statutes made under this Act shall be published in
the official Gazette."
E
The Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, defines a
notification as "a notification in the Gazette." [Vide clause (36)
of section 2]. Section 28 of the said General Clauses Act
provides:
F
"28. Publication of orders and notifications in the Gazette
: Where in any Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act or any
rule made under any such Act, it is directed that any order,
notification or other matter shall be notified or published,
such notification or publication shall, unless the Act
G
otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is
published in the Gazette."

9. Section 36 lays down three steps for making or
amending a Statute. They are:
H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A (a) The Statute should be made by the Board of
~
Management in the manner specified in sub-
section ( 1);

(b) The Statute should be approved and assented by
B the Chancellor;

(c) The Statute so made and assented, shall be
published in the official Gazette.
~
When the Act lays down the manner in which a statute under
c the Act should be made, it shall have to be made in that manner
and no other. The requirement that the statute should be
published in the official Gazette, is an integral part of the
process of 'statute making' under section 36 of the Act. It is
mandatory and not directory. Until publication in the official
D Gazette, the statute will be considered as still being in the
-.\
process of being made, even if had received the assent of the -,
Chancellor. A 'statute in the making' or a 'statute-in-process'
is incomplete and is n.either valid nor effective as a statute. So
long as the statute is not completely made, but is still in the
E process of being made, it can be cancelled or withdrawn or
modified, without the need for 'publication' of such cancellation,
withdrawal or modification. The Chancellor kept the 'statute-in"
process' pending and later reconsidered it and held that the
Statute proposing the time-bound promotion scheme was still- -4- ,
I

born and non-est. "'°'
F
10. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that
the requirement in section 36 of the Act relating to publication
in the official Gazette should, contextually be considered as
directory and not mandatory. He submitted that thrA~ was a
G significant difference between the require!'nent of assent ·of the
Chancellor for a statute under sub- ~ection (2) '.)f section 36 and
the requirement relating to publication of the statute in the ~

official Gazette under sub"'.'section (4) of section 36. He pointed
out that sub-section (3) made it _;lear that in the absence of
H assent by the Chancellor under sub-section (2), the Statute was
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK1179
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

not valid. Thus, the consequence of non-compliance with the A
requirement relating to assent of the Chancellor was specified
in the section itself. On the other hand, though sub-section (4)
of section 36 requires that the statute should be published in
the official gazette, there is no provision similar to sub-section
(3) providing that the statute will not be valid unless it is 8
published in the official Gazette. He therefore contended that
the requirement relating to assent of the Vice-Chancellor to the
statute was mandatory, but publication in the official Gazette
was only directory.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents admitted that C
the purpose of publication of a sub-ordinate legislation in the
official gazette is to give publicity to the notification and to
provide authenticity to the contents of that notification in case
some dispute arises with regard to its contents. But he
~ submitted that if a sub-ordinate legislation imposed obligations, D
or created liabilities, or required performance of duties, and
provided for penalties for non-performance, its publication in
the Gazette will have to be considered to be mandatory, as no
one can be expected to perform duties and obligations nor be
subjected to punishments, unless they had knowledge of such E
provisions; and therefore, there was a mandatory need to notify
such sub-ordinate legislation to the public and publication in the
~ Gazette is deemed to be notice to all concerned. But on the
; other hand, if the order or notification is intended to benefit only
a specific and limited class of persons, say employees of a F
particular organisation, it may be sufficient to in~rm or notify
the beneficiaries by other modes, such as displaying the order
on the notice board or by circulating it among the intended
beneficiaries; and in such cases of sub-ordinate legislations of
limited application, if there is a provision requiring publication G
, in the official Gazette, such requirement will have to be
4
considered directory and as a mere formality. He therefore
submitted that the principle that a sub-ordinate legislation which
is not published cannot come into effect nor enforced against
any member of the public, for want of knowledge to the public, H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A in the absence of publication, cannot apply where a statute is
made, as in this case, for the benefit of a specific and small ~·
class of persons, that is the teaching faculty of University, and
the making of the said statute is otherwise known to all the
teaching faculty, and when the teachers for whose benefit it is
B made seek implementation of the Statute. It was contended that
in such a case, the non-publication of the Statute in the official
Gazette cannot be put forth as an objection for its
implementation.
~
12. We have carefully considered the contention of the
c respondents. Many of the statutes which the University is
empowered to frame deal with topics which fall in public
domain, affecting or relevant to general public. For example,
Item (4) of Section 35 relates to classification, qualification and ·
manner of appointment of teachers and other non-teaching staff.
D Item (9) relates to the manner of appointment and selection of
officers other than Vice-Chancellor, and their powers, terms and --'!
conditions of service. Item (16) relates to entrance or admission
of students fo a University and their enrolment and continuance
as such and the conditions and procedure for dropping student
E from enrolment. Item (17) relates to fees which may be charged
by a University. Item (21) relates to maintenance of discipline
among students of a University. Item (26) relates to conditions
and mode of appointment and the duties of examining bodies
and examiners. Any person interested in appointment in the ~

F University service as a teacher or non-teaching staff or officer '·
is entitled to know the qualifications prescribed for the post and
the manner/roode of selection and appointment. The students
or prospective students are entitled to know the fees whic~, may
be charged by the University. The statute made for mair:anance
G of discipline amongst the students con1,;erns the large body of ·
the student community which keeps changinq periodically. If the ·
Statutes made on these topics are not published in the Official
~
Gazette, the concerned persons may never come to know about
them. Therefore, the provision contained in Section 36(4)
H requiring publication of Statutes in the Official Gazette, which
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK1181
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
applies to all statutes framed by the University, has to be treated A
..:::...,~-; mandatory. The fact that a particular statute may not concern
the general public, but may affect only a specified class of
employees, is not a ground to exclude the applicability of the
mandatory requirement of p.ublication in the Official Gazette, to
that statute in the absence of an exception in Section 36(4) of B
the Act.

13. The question can be looked at from another
perspective also. The contentions urged by the respondents
..._ may be good grounds for the legislature to conclude that there
n.eed not be a provision in the Act for publication in the official C
Gazette, when they relate to a small section of employees of
the University and consequently, amend Section 36(4) providing
for a simpler mode of publication in such cases. But the
contentions are not relevant grounds for holding that a statutorily
enacted mandatory requirement relating to publication in official D
~ Gazette, is directory. The respondents cannot by importing the
reasons for making a statutory provision. or the object of
making a statutory provision, attempt to defeat the specific and
unambiguous mandatory requirements of that statutory
provision. As noticed above, several reasons might have E
contributed to making of a statutory provision providing for
publication of all statutes in the official Gazette. All those
reasons may not apply or exist in regard to making of an
+ individual statute. But once the law lays down that publication
of a statute in the Of~icial Gazette is a part of the process of F
making a statute, the object of making such a provision for
publication recedes into the background and becomes
irrelevant, and on the other hand, fulfilment of the requirement
to make public the statute by publication in the Official Gazette
~,,. becomes mandatory and binding. We may illustrate the position G
by an example:

If a Two-way Street is declared as a One-way Street, the
reason for such declaration may be that the traffic was
heavy and the two-way traffic was causing chaos, creating
H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C. R.

A bottlenecks and impeding smooth flow of traffic. The object
of declaring the street to be a One-way Street may be to
ease the traffic and provide road safety and traffic ~-
discipline. But once the street is declared to be a one-way,
a car driver charged with the offence of driving on the
•
B wrong way, cannot defend his wrong act by contending that
when he was going the wrong way, there was not much
traffic on the road, and therefore, there was no need for
the street to be a one-way and the declaration of the street
as one-way should be treated as directory or optional.
c Once the street is declared to be a one-way street, even _j._
if there is no heavy traffic, vehicle drivers should use it as
one-way street. The remedy if any is not to treat the
requirement as directory or optional, but to require the
authority concerned to restrict the declaration to peak
hours.
D
14. In B.K. Srinivasan vs. State of Kamataka - 1987 (1)
~
SCC 658, this Court explained why publication in the Gazette
was mandatory and necessary in regard to sub-ordinate
legislations :
E
"There can be no doubt about the proposition that where
a law, whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands
compliance, those that are governed must be notified
directly and reliably of the law and all changes and
F additions made to it by various processes. Whether law ....
is viewed from the standpoint of the 'conscientious good
man' seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint
of Justice Holmes's 'Unconscientious bad man' seeking
to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must
be so made that it can be known. We know that delegate.d /
G
or subordinate legislation is all pery~~ive and that there is ./

hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated
or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not
more important, than governance by Parliamentary ,._
legislation. But unlike Parliamentary Legislation which is
H
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK 1183
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is A
often made, unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister,
....... a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary.
It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in
order to take effect, must be published or promulgated
in some suitable manner, whether such publication or B
promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not.
It will then take effect from the date of such publication
or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the
mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be
J.. followed." c
(emphasis supplied)

However, if the parent law had been silent about the manner
of publishing or notifying the ~tatute, and had not prescribed
publication in the official Gazette as the mode of publication, D
the contentions of respondents might have merited some
consideration. But when the Act clearly provided that the statute
required publication in the Gazette, the requirement became
mandatory. In fact, in B.K. Srinivasan, this Court explained the
position, if the parent Act was silent about publication in the E
Gazette:

"Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate
legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such
-~ a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If
the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode F
of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes
a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take
effect only when it is published through the customarily
recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or
some other reasonable mode of publication. There may G
be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few

- individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such
cases publication or promulgation by other means may be
sufficient."
H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 15. The decision of this Court in /. T. C. Bhadrachalam
Paperboards vs. Manda/ Revenue Officer, AP - 1996 (6) SCC
634, also throws considerable light on this issue. In that case,
section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Land
Assessment Act 1963, conferred upon the government the
B power to exempt any class of non-agricultural land from the levy
by an order published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The state
government issued GOM No.201 dated 17.12.1976, providing
certain exemptions including exemption from non-agricultural
land assessment, by way of an incentive and concession to
c industries to be established in certain schedule areas, the object ......
being to provide rapid industrialisation of those backward
areas. The said order was not published in the official gazette.
One of the questions considered by this Court was whether the
Government Order which did not comply with the mandatory
requirement of publication in the Gazette could be relied on by
D
person who acted upon it, to invoke the principle of promissory
estoppel against the government and claim the benefit under ~
the government order on the ground that it contained a promise
or representation held out by the government to the members
of the public. This Court held that the requirement under section
E 11 of the Act relating to publication of the government order in
the Gazette, was mandatory and that where an enactment
requires an act (making a government order) to be done by the
government only in the manner prescribed therein, then non-
compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement will make
F +
the act (making of a government order) invalid and
consequently, the government order cannot be considered as
a valid and binding one, nor as a representation held out by
the government, creating any right to seek the benefit of that
government order by invoking the prinCiple of promissory ,t
G estoppel against the government. This Court held :

"30. Sri Sorabjee next contended that even if it is held that
the publication in the Gazette is mandatory yet G.O.Ms. No.
201 can be treah3d as a representation and a promise and
inasmuch as the appellant had acted upon such
H
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. ASHOK 1185
KUMAR PRASAD AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
representation to his detriment, the government should not A
be allowed to go back upon such representation. It is
...... ~ submitted that by allowing the government to go back on
such representation, the appellant will be prejudiced.
Learned Counsel also contended that where the

- government makes a representation, acting within the B
scope of its ostensible authority, and if another person acts
upon such representation, the government must be held to
be bound by such representation and that any defect in
procedure or irregularity can be waived so as to render
valid which would' otherwise be invalid. Counsel further c
submitted that allowing the government to go back upon
its promise contained in G.0.Ms. No. 201 would virtually
amount to allowing it to commit a legal fraud. For a proper
appreciation of this contention, it is necessary to keep in
,,. mind the distinction between an administrative act and an
, D
act done under a statute. If the statute requires that a
-; particular act should be done in a particular manner and if
it is found, as we have found hereinbefore, that the act
done by the government is invalid and ineffective for non-
compliance with the mandatory requirements of law, it
would be rather curious if it is held that notwithstanding E
such non-compliance, it yet constitutes a 'promise' or a
representation for the purpose of invoking the rule of
promissory/equitable estoppel. Accepting such a plea
... would amount to nullifying the mandatory requirements of
law besides providing a licence to the government or other F
body to act ignoring the binding provisions of law. Such a
course would render the mandatory provisions of the
enactment meaningless and superfluous. Where the field
is occupied by an enactment the executive has to act in
accordance therewith, particularly where the provisions are G
mandatory in nature. There is no room for any
administrative action or for doing the thing ordained by the
---.(_ statute otherwise than in accordai .ce therewith. Where, of
course, the matter is not governed by a law made by a
competent Legislature, the executive can act in its H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A executive capacity since the executive power of the State
extends to matters with respect to which the Legislature
of a State has the power to make laws (Article 162 of the
Constitution). The proposition urged by the learned
Counsel for the appellant falls foul of our constitutional
B scheme and public interest. It would virtually mean that the
rule of promissory estoppel can be pleaded to defeat the
provisions of law whereas the said rule, it is well settled,
is not available against a statutory provision. The sanctity
of law and the sanctity of the mandatory requirement of the
c law cannot be allowed to be defeated by resort to rules of
estoppal. None of the decisions cited by the learned
Counsel say that where an act is done in violation of a
mandatory provision of a statute, such act can still be
made a foundation for invoking the rule of promissory/
equitable estoppel. Moreover, when the government acts ...._
D ~

outside its authority, as in this case, it is difficult to say that
it is acting within its o&tensible authority. ~

. 16. In view of the above, it is not possible to accept the
contention that the statute contained in the notification dated
E 4.9.1991 came into effect or became enforceable even in the
absence of publication in the official Gazette. The High Court
committed an error in holding that the teachers became entitled
to the benefit of the statute relating to time-bound promotion
scheme, when the said statute made by the Board of
F Management was assented to by the Chancellor even though ~

it was not published in the Gazette. The High Court also
committed an error in observing that the non-publication was
unreasonable and arbitrary, as it ignored the valid reasons
assigned by the Chancellor for withdrawing his assent to the
G incomplete statute, in his order dated 19.3.1996. -
17. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the order
of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
respondents before the High Court.

H B.B.B. Appeals allowed.