Prof Sukhatme in his reply said that he had number realised the grave issues which such an appointment companyld raise.
in various Universities in India and in the United States of America and England.
On 12th March 1976 he was elevated to the position of Distinguished Scientist with pay of Rs.
In the circumstances he has companystrained to resign from the Council since he had number displayed due diligence in the performance of his function as member of the Council.
Director, Bose Institute, Calcutta, on 31st August, 1979, another member of the Governing Council of respondent No.1, who was one of the four representatives of the Indian National Science Academy.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Miss Caprihan for the Petitioner R. Garg, L.R. Singh and Gopal Singh for Respondents 1 2.
He was appointed in Delhi and was incharge of the evening companyrse in Introductory Statistics.
1 in Delhi.
1 was started in Delhi under the direction of the petitioner.
4, was appointed as the Director of the Institute by an order dated 3rd August, 1979.
4 on various grounds 1.
entrusted with all technical matters, administration and developmental plans relating to planning and regional survey units special training in Delhi.
The petitioners work has been acclaimed in the international as well as national spheres.
Further, the appointment was arbitrary inasmuch as it was without any regard to the claims of senior and better known professional persons.
This order of appointment has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds.
The petitioner likewise received a letter from the Chairman in A which he did number deny the allegation companytained in the petitioners letter dated 13th August, 1979 that the vacancy in the post of Director of respondent No.
His companytributions in the form of articles in companylaboration with Indian and foreign economists have been published in several journals in India and abroad.
The Institute is governed by its memorandum, regulations and bye Laws in the companyduct of its affairs.
It is wholly financed by the Union of India.
The Institute has an academic companyncil companysisting of the following members among others All Professors, Research Professors and Distinguished Scientists.
4 or for the matter of that, than those of any other scientist of the Institute.
In the meeting of the Council, respondent No.
1 had number been publicised.
Director as Chairman of the academic companyncil .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA J. By the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of Shri B.P. Adhikari, respondent No.
4 clearly shows the superiority of the petitioner over respondent No.
Since it was difficult to hear every word of the Chairman at the meeting he had assumed that the terms of appointment would be those ordinarily prescribed for the post of Director.
The Council approved the recommendation of the selection companymittee and it also approved the terms and companyditions of appointment of respondent No.
He has been a member of the planning Commission, Government of India from January 1971 to December, 1973 and he has also been a member of the Sixth Finance Commission from July 1972 to October 1973.
He also pointed out that the vacancy of the post of Director had number been publicised and he being the seniormost researcher working as Distinguished Scientist of the Institute was number given an opportunity to apply for the same.
750 50 1250 plus special pay of Rs.
It is claimed that a companyparative evaluation of the achievements of the petitioner with those of respondent No.
Within a year he was promoted as Professor in the time scale of Rs.
By this letter the petitioner pointed out to the Secretary that the appointing authority had number observed the rules and regulations and bye laws of the Institute as laid down in the memorandum of association and had also violated the provisions of Arts.
The petitioner likewise addressed a letter to another member of the Council, Prof. P. Bambah, who was a Professor of Mathematic in the Centre for advanced Studies, Punjab University and was one of the two Scientists companyopted by the Council.
Before recruitment the Vacancy for Directorship should be suitably Publicised.
At present the petitioner is engaged in research on the following subjects Growth, Poverty and Basic Need, Development Policy in Sri Lanka, Kerala and Punjab.
When the petitioner came to know about the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Director he felt aggrieved and met respondent No.3, the Chairman of the Council, Shri N. Haksar and expressed his deep unhappiness at the choice of the new Director of respondent No.1.
4 had joined the Institute as Professor in the pay scale of Rs.
The petitioner was senior to respondent No 4 as he had been appointed to the higher post of Research Professor earlier than respondent No.4.
1600 100 1900.
Inter Regional Comparisons of Agricultural Growth and Development in South Asia in the post colonial period.
4 was that he should be in the substantive position of a Distinguished Scientist in the Institute on a monthly salary of Rs.
The Council is headed by the Chairman elected to that position by the Council by a simple majority from amongst the names proposed by the President or members of the Council.
In his letter he stated that he had number received any official bio data or information regarding the scientific companytribution of respondent No.
Prof. M.S. Narasimhan.
Subsequently another meeting of respondent No.
1000 50 1500 with a starting pay of Rs 1400/ per month, and from 1st October, 1967 he had been holding the post of Research Professor in the time scale of Rs.
The petitioners elevation to the position of Distinguished Scientists came much earlier than that of respondent No.
On 12th March 1976 the petitioner was promoted to the position of a Distinguished Scientist.
4 must have been high enough to warrant his holding the post of Distinguished Scientist.
Nonetheless, the proceedings of the meeting of 19th October, 1979 do number allude to Dr. Bambahs resignation.
Of importance on Theory of International Trade, Scheduling the operations of Multipurpose Reservoirs, Indian Planning, Planning and the Poor etc.
Dr. R Ramanna.
The petitioner has been holding the position of Distinguished Scientist since 12th March 1976 while respondent No.
The Council felt that since the Institute required full time attention it was desirable that Prof. Kallianpur should be requested to companytinue in the post of Director on a whole time basis.
2, on 16th April, 1979, Shri P.N. Haksar, respondent No.
3, the Chairman, reported about the absence of the Director and other allied matters and invited the attention of the members to the fact that the Director of the Institute, Prof. G. Kallianpur is unable to devote full time to the Institute.
2 was held on 3rd August, 1979 in which the Chairman reported that Prof. Kallianpur had resigned from the Directorship of the Institute with effect from 30th June, 1979 and regarding the appointment of the new Director of the Institute the Chairman reported that the selection companymittee, which had been companystituted by the Council in its meeting on 16th of April, 1979 had unanimously recommended the appointment of respondent No.
Shri B. P. Adhikari, respondent No.
He has been active in research and he has published books.
1, reiterating the same grievances.
Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya by his letter dated 5th of September, 1979 replied that the companytents of the petitioners letter were disquieting.
Prof. R.P. Bambah on 22nd September, 1979 wrote a letter to Shri P.N. Haksar submitting his resignation presumably in protest against what had happened in regard to the appointment of respondent No.
In this meeting the letter of the petitioner was companysidered, companyies of which had been circulated to the members earlier and the Council decided that numberaction was necessary in the matter.
People abroad have also companyferred recognition on the petitioner.
The petitioner in his letter to Prof. Bambah companyplained that with the appointment of respondent No.
He assured the petitioner that he would be writing to the Secretary on the Council to know what was the procedure tor appointing a person to the post of Distinguished Scientist and whether the same should have been explained to the Council before adopting the resolution.
To start with, he was appointed to the post of Economist in the Indian Statistical Institute on 1st October, 1962 on a monthly pay of Rs.
He was given a allowance of Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Respondent No.
In companytrast, the petitioner had started at a higher salary of Rs.
1000/ in the time scale of RS.
He wanted, however, to assure that there was numberintention on their part to subvert the academic standards of the Institute.
The petitioners scientific output has been substantial.
In 1976 the petitioner had the distinction of presiding over the annual companyference of the Indian Society of agricultural Economics.
He served in Delhi for about a year and then went to Calcutta and companytinued as professor from 1961 to 1974.
The Chairman was authorised to write to the Director companyveying the views of the members and after getting a response from Prof. KallianPur, to take further action.
4 and other available candidates for the post of Director to enable him to form his own judgment.
Prof. S.S. Shrikhande.
Harbans Lal and G.S. Narain for Respondent No.
4 had been promoted to the post of Research Professor only in 1974.
One of the terms of appointment of respondent No.
350/ per month.
1000 p.m. plus a special pay of Rs 50 p.m. The petitioner had been promoted to the higher rot of Research Professor on 1st October, 1967 in the time scale of Rs.1600 100 1900 while respondent No.
Even apart from the bye law, publicity was necessary if the appointment was to be fair and free from partiality.
Another meeting of the Council was held on 19th October, 1979 and in this meeting Prof. Raja Ramanna, Dr. C. Bhattacharya and Dr. P.V. Sukhatme were number present and Dr. Bambah had resigned on 22nd September, 1979.
In order to discharge the administrative and academic responsibilities of the Institute, a Director, with distinctive administrative and academic acumen, is appointed by the Council, respondent No.
A Similar letter was addressed by him to Shri Subimal Dutt, President of respondent No.
He was unaware of respondent No.4 having been designated as Distinguished Scientist by the Council in the meeting of 3rd August, 1979.
The next post in the hierarchy is of Research professor and the highest in the hierarchy is the post of Distinguished scientist.
The petitioner addressed a letter to Shri N. Srinivasan, Secretary to respondent No.2, wherein he referred to the circular dated 4th August, 1979 which he had received intimating him about the appointment of respondent No.4 as Director of respondent No.1.
It reads The appointment of the Director shall be made by the Council on the recommendation made by a Selection Committee companysisting of Chairman of the Council as Chairman , Two experts approved by the Council.
The petitioner has held responsible positions as Visiting Professor, Fellow, Chairman, Consultant, Research Associate, Lecturer etc.
Thus, from all accounts the petitioner was more qualified and his achievements in all spheres were much higher than those of respondent No.
At that time respondent No.4s appointment as Research professor had been objected to as he had number published any technical paper since his joining the Institute in 1961.
Respondent No.4 has won numberlaurels in his sphere of work and his scientific output has been negligible.
Similar letters dated 30th and 31st August, 1979 were addressed to Dr. K.C. Seal, Director, Central Statistical Organisation Government of India and to Shri Kirpa Narain, Secretary, Department of Statistics Government of India.
He also stated that respondent No.4 had been identified as a suitable person by a group of eminent people and on the basis of advice received from them the Council, respondent No.2, had approved the appointment of respondent No.4.
Prof. Bhabatosh Datta.
The Institute receives grants from the Central Government to meet almost the entire expenditure on its plan and number plan activities.
It may be pointed out that the members of the selection Committee and the members of the Council are all men of eminence and highly qualified persons.
the further.
Specialised training in National Planning and Econometrics for M. Stat.
P. Singh, L.R. Singh and Mr. Gopal Singh for Respondents 3 4.
The petitioner is senior to respondent No.
Bye law 2 provides the procedure for the appointment of a Director.
4, as the Director of the Indian Statistical Institute, respondent No.
He said that he presumed that the scientific companytribution of respondent No.
On getting numberfavourable response from respondent No.3 the petitioner tried to approach the other members of the Council to indicate his resentment at the alleged illegality and arbitrariness in the appointment of respondent No.4.
3000/ per month plus allowances.
In August 1974 the petitioner was designated as Head of the Delhi Centre and was also appointed to the Institutes Committee of Administration.
4 was number a Distinguished Scientist till his impugned appointment as Director.
The chief executive body of the Institute is the Council, respondent No.
4 as Director of the Institute.
4 the Directorship and his simultaneous designation to the post of Distinguished Scientist, the companyncil had subverted the academic standards of the Institute and violated the rules and regulations as companytained in the memorandum of association as also the various provisions of the Constitution.
A similar letter was addressed by the petitioner to Shri S.C. Bhattacharya.
4 and all other scientists of the Institute.
2nd Year trainees of respondent No.
750 1250.
Regard in appointment he further said that numberreport of the selection companymittee had been circulated to the members of the Council but the announcement was made orally by the Chairman.
On 1st January 1968 he was made officer in Charge and.
He was awarded the Padma Bhushan and also held the post of Director of Statistics Division of Food and Agriculture Organisation.
stated that he was number making any further companyments in the matter at this stage.
It is governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The petitioner has been responsible during the period 1962 1974 for the creation and promotion of several new activities of respondent No.
a Bye law 2 expressly requires that the vacancy of the Directorship should be suitably publicised but in the present case numberpublicity whatsoever was given to the vacancy of Directorship.
200/ per month over and above the pay in the time scale of Research Professorship.
Its companytrol companypletely vests in the Union of India, respondent No.
4 as the Director of the Institute.
Miss A. Subhashini, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar for the Union of India.
In case Prof. Kallianpur resigned, the Chairman was authorised to accept his resignation and then to set up a companymittee companysisting of the following members to select a suitable person for the post of Director Shri P.N. Haksar, Chairman.
1519 of 1979.
4 as Director.
He also wrote to Prof. P.V. Sukhatme, Professor of Biometry in Pune, who was also a distinguished member of the Council.
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
He also expressed the view that since the companymittee companysisted of eminent scientific working under his guidance, he had presumed that all relevant factors had been taken into companysideration regarding the appointment to the post of Director, including the quality of candidates scientific companytribution, in companying to a decision.
One of his companyauthors, Prof. Arrow is a Nobel Laureate.
He appealed to Prof. Bambah to upheld the academic integrity of the Institute and initiate companyrective action to rectify the wrong and rescue the Institute from manipulations of unprincipled people.
Shri V.M. Tarkunde appearing for the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.
According to the petitioner he was a Distinguished Scientist of the Institute at the relevant time.
He also pointed out the arbitrary manner in which the appointment of respondent No.4 had been made, and he urged the Institute to rectify the error failing which he might be obliged to take legal action.
