SWARAN LATA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

SEN, J. This appeal, by special leave, directed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated May 26, 1977, in its appellate jurisdic tion reversing the judgment and order of a Single Judge of that Conrt the question whether the dated February 13, 1976 mainly raises appointment of the respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lala Dewan by the Chandigarh Administration to the post of Principal, Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh, by direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission was invalid, as being contrary to the directions issued by the Central Government under s. 84 of the Punjab R~organisation Act, 1966. ' < SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 957 .. the Government Central Crafts Institute The principal point in controversy in the appeal is whether the post of Principal of Women, Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900 was a 'deputa tion post' and required to be filled in by the Chandigarh Administra tion only by an officer on deputation drawing an equivalent scale from the States of Haryana and Punjab or could also be filled up by appointment of a suitable candidate by advertising the post through the Union Public Service Commission. Three subsidiary questions also arise in the appeal, namely ( 1) whether the Union Public Service Commission had, in fact, exceeded its power by usurping the functions of the newly created Union terri tory of Chandigarh by relaxing the essential qualifications of the candi dates while recommending the name of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lala Dewan for appointment to the post of Principal, and thereby altered the qualifications prescribed by the Chandigarh Administration to regulate recruitment to that post; (2) whether the appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lala Dewan by the Chandigarh Admi nistration to the post of Principal was did not possess if any, (3) whether prescribed the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated April 23, 1975 culminating in the selection of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lala Dewan as the candidate most suitable for appointment to the post of Principal, were vitiated because Dr. 0. S. Sehgal, Director, Technical Education, Chandigarh assisted the Selection Committee in its delibera· lions during the interview, on account of his bias, if any, against the appellant. requisite essential qualifications, illegal inasmuch as, the post question; _The main argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant, can be conveniently considered under two heads: The first branch of his contention is, that in terms of the instructions issued by the Central Government under s. 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the post of Principal of the Institute was 'deputation post' and, therefore, the Chandigarh Administration had no authority to fill up the post by direct recruitment through Union Public Service Commission. The is that the Union Public other branch of the counsel's contention Service Commission had no power to relax the essential qualifications of the candidates to be selected at the interview without the prior con currence of the Chandigarh Administration. There is no warrant for the contention that the power of the Chandigarh Administration in relation to the mode of filling up the ' .. • j B c E F G_ :::: 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11979] 2 s.c.R. A post in question, which admittedly is under the control of the Adminis trator, Chandigarh Administration, stands circumscribed by the terms of the directions issued by the Central Government under s. 84 of the Act. B .c The decisioll must tum on a construction of the instructions issue<! on November 4, 1966 by w)l.ich the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which consequent upon the amendment of the Gov ernment of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 by Order of the President of India dated October 30, 1966 was made responsible for the work of the Union territory of Chandigarh. These instructions were issued on tl1c basis that personnel for the Union territory o( Chandigarh would be provided on deputation by the two States of Punjab and Haryana, The said instructions, so far matcriaL read as folk1ws: "Except for the department of (i) Printing and stationery (ii) Architecture and (iii) Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, the posts in the other departments under the control of the Chief Com missioner, Chandigarh will be tilled up by deputatian mainly from the Punjab /Haryana State Cadres. 'E :F In respect of the above-mentioned departments. the staff will be taken en bloc by the Chandigarh Union territory Administration. A committee consisting of the representa tives of the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, the Chandi garh Union territory Administration and the Ministry of Home Affairs has been constituted to recommend absorption of persomfol against posts in the Chandigarh Union territory Administration, from the Punjab/Haryana State cadres on pcrmanmt basis." The aforesaid conununication also conveyed the order of the Gov ernment of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, sanctioning the creation and continuance of territory of Chandigarh from November 1, 1966. "existing posts" in the Union . G \.ff These instructions were in conformity with the earlier decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs conveyed by the letter of the Chief Secretary to the Government of erstwhile State of Punjab dated August 9, 1966 staling that the Government had set up a committee headed by Sri V. Shanker, J.C.S., for the finalisation of the proposals of the Departmental Committees in regard to the alloca tion of the personnel to the reorganised States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union territory of Chandigarh. In regard to the Union terri tory of Chandigarh, the decision o[ the Government of India was in these terms: j • l SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 959 "It may be presumed that personnel for the Union terri tory of Chandigarh will be provided on deputation by the two States of Punjab and Haryana." A " The aforesaid instructions issued under s. 84 of the Act were supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions for the reorgani sation of the States. The instructions were binding on the State Gov- B ernments of Punjab and Haryana as also on the Chandigarh Adminis tration in the matter of integration of services : Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.( 1) The key to the interpretation of the aforesaid instructions issued under s. 84 of the Act, obviously lies in th word 'mainly'. Accord ing to the ordinary plain meaning, the word "mainly" Rrnst, in the context, mean "substantially", "as. far as practic~ble" or "so far as 1n Shorter Oxford Dictionary,, 2nd Edn., vol. 1, p. 1189, possible." the meaning given is : "For the most part; chiefly, principally". Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Edn., vol. III, p. 1483, more or less the same meaning is given: "Principally, chiefly, in the ·n1ainH. c D It seems to us that for a proper determination of the question, it is necessary first of all to formulate as clearly as possible the precise natu~ and the effect of the directions issued by the Central Govern ment under s .84 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, which reads : "84. Power of Central Government to give directions: The Central Government may give such directions to the State Governments of Punjab and Haryana and to the Ad ministrators of the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of givil)g effect to the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Governments and the Administrators shall comply with such directions." E F The use of the words "for the purpose of glVlng effect to tk foregoing provisions of this Part" clearly curtails the ambit of section. The directions that the Central Government issues under the section are only for a limited purpose, i.e., for the implementation of the scheme for the re-organisation of services. When the process re lating to integration of services as envisaged by the supplemental, for re-organisation of services incidental or consequential provisions under a law made by the Parliament in exercise of its power under H the G (1) [1972] 5~119 SC!/79 I S.C.C. 171. :,;. • • • . ,.. 96 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979) 2 S.C.R. •' _, ' A Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution is completed, such an incidental provision like s. 84 necessarily ceases to have effect B While it is not disputed that the power to regulate matters relating to services under the Union of India and under the various States specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution is an exclusive func tion of the Union and the States under Entry 70, List I and Entry 41, List II of Seventh Schedule read with Article 309 and normally, therefore, it is the exclusive power of the Union and the States to deal with their services either in exercise of their Legislative functions or rule-making powers, or in the absence of any law or rules, in exercise of their executive power under Article 73 and Article 162 of .C - Constitution, which is co-extensive with their legislative powers to 1t is regulate recruitment and conditions of strenuously urged that this power of the Union and of the States which embraces within itself the power to regulate the mode of recruitment incidental or consequential of services must yield directions issued by the Central Government in relation to the setting up of services in a newly formed State under a law made by the Par liament relatable to Article 3 of th<! Constitution, in the context of re organisation of States. To put it more precisely, it is argued that the newly formed State is completely divested of its power to d"ll _with In Union of India v. P. K. Roy & Ors. ( 1) this Court its services. touched upon the subject, but expressed no final opinion since the question did not directly arise. service, nevertheless to the supplemental, E D After the process of integration of services is finalized in con formity with any law made by the Parliament referred to in Articles 2 or 3 of the Constitution, the supplemental, incidental and consequen tial provisions contained therein, which. by reason of Article 4 have the effect to divest the newly formed State of its power to deal with its services, wonld no longer operate. Such power is only kept under suspended animation till the process of re-organisation of services is not completed. Once the integration of services in a newly formed State is finalized, there is no reason for a transitory, consequential or incidental provision like s. 84 of the Act to operate in perpetuity. F G For the reasons already stated, there is no basis for the submission that the supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions which the Parliament is competent to make while enacting a law under Articles 2 or 3 have an overriding effect for all times. On the plain words of ff Article 4 of the Constitution, a provision like s. 84 of the Act, or the directions issued thereunder are only supplemental incidental or con (l) [1968]2 S.C.R. 186. • l • SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 961 sequential to the 'scheme of re-organiiation of services, which is con- A sequential upon the re-organisation of a State. They cannotoe given a wider effect than what is intended. It may incidentally be mentioned that on November 1, 1966, i.e., .on the appointed day under s. 2(b), the President of India issued an order, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article B 309 of the Constitution directing that the Administrator of the Union territory of Chandigarh shall exercise the power to make rules in regard to the following matters namely : (i) the method of recruitment to the Central Civil Services and posts (Class II, Class III and Class IV) under his ad- c ministrative control in connection with the affairs of the Union territory of Chandigarh; (ii) the qualifications necessary for appointment to such servi ces and posts; and (iii) the conditions of service of persons appointed to such D services and posts for firmation, seniority and promotion: the purpose of probation; con Provided that the power conferred by this notification shall not be exercisable in respect of such services and posts as are borne on a cadre common to two or more Union terri- tories." - The Administrator in exercise of the powers conferred by aforesaid order of the President, framed no rules to regulate recruit ment and conditions of service of the post of Principal. Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh, nor were any rules framed prescribing the qualifications necessary for appointment to such posts. ' It is not obligatory under the proviso to Article 309 to make rules of recruitment etc. before a service can be constituted, or a post created or filled. The State Government has executive power in rela tion to all matters in respect to which the Legislature of the State has It follows from this that the State Government power to make laws. will have executive powers in respect of List II, Entry 41 of Seventh Schedule: 'State Public Services': B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore.(') There is nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Consti tution whkh abrid~es the power of the executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. The same view has been (I) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 682. E F G B A B c D E F G A 962 SUPRE!\1E COUR f REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. taken by this Court in T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem & Anr. (1) and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (') The same priu ciple underlies Article 73 of the Constitution in relation to the executive power of the Union. There are thus no rules and regulations which require the Chandi garh Administration to fill up by deputation the vacancy in the post of the Principal, Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh. therefore, the The Chandiiarh Administration had, option to either directly recruit persons to be appointed to the post through Union Public Service Commission or to request either State of Punjab or the State of Haryana to send the names of suitable persons whom the Chandigarh Administration might be willing It must, accordingly, he held that the post_ of principal of the appoint. Institute was not a "deputation post" and, therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lala Dewan by the Chandigarh Ad ministration to that post, by direct recruitment through the Commission was not invalid. Even assuming that the directions issued by the Central Govern ment uuder s. 84 of the Act were binding on the Chandigarh Adminis tration, it is clear that there is no breach thereof. From the corres pondence that JYasscd between the Chandigarh Administration and the Government of Haryana, there can be no doubt whatever that the Chandigarh Administration made their utmost endeavour to get a suit able person on deputation for appointment as Principal of the Institute. A long correspondence on the subject ensued and eventu11lly Government of Haryana by its letter dated July 7, 1974, informed the Chandigarh Administration that it was not possible to relieve any woman officers in the grade of Rs. 350-900 from the Industrial Train ing Department except that of Smt. Champa Malhotra who was facing an inquiry, with a request that the appellant should instead be appointed. The Government of Haryana was obviously wrong in insisting upon the appointment of an officer in the scale of Rs. 300-500. This could not obviously be done ·as it would be contrary to the ins tructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated August 16, 1971 that an officer cannot be appointed on deputation to a post that carried a higher grade of pay in the Union territory of Chandigarh. Thus. the post of Principal in the pay scale of Rs. 350- 900 could only be filled by a person on deputation who manned a post (l) fl96l] I S.C.R. 750. (2) [196!] 1 S.C.R. t 11. _ .... - • • • ' SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 963 the Scale oi pay of which was equivalent to the srnle of pay of the Principal i.e. Rs. 350-900. A • It appears that the entire question was re-examined by the Chandi garh Administration. The Director, Technical Education by his letter dated October 9, 1974 addressed to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration stated that the qualifications prescribed by the Govern- B ment of India in the Training Manual for the post of Principal in such institutions were as under : I. Degree or its equivalent Electrical Engineering will be preferred. in Mechanical Engineering or

#2. In the case of degree holder, pmctical experience of one C year in a reputed concern or in a training institute will be desirable.

#3. In the case of Diploma holders, practical experience of 5 years in a reputed concern or in a training institute will be desirable. institution similar to Further, he mentioned that there was no Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh e.ither the State of Punjab or in the State of Haryana. There were only Government Industrial Schools for girls which were still in the process of being developed. These institutions were headed by Head-Mis tresses Principals in the non-gazetted scale of Rs. 300-500. He there fore, rightly pointed out that the posts of Assistant Directresses in the States of Punjab and Haryana were equivalent to the post of Principal of the Institute, as they also carried the scale of Rs. 350-900 and that throughout the Chandigarh Administration had been appoint ing Principal of the Institute only from the cadre of Assistant Direc tresscil. D E F In response to Government of Haryana's letter dated September 27 /30, 1974, the Chandigarh Administration accordingly wrote on October 11/14, 1974 giving detailed reasons why it was not possible to take the appellant on deputation as Principal because on her rever- G Industries sion from her current assi~ment with the Delhi Small Development Corporation she would be posted as Head Mistress in the scale of Rs. 300-500 whereas the scale of the Principal's post at the Institute was Rs. 350-900 inasmuch as the Government of India's instructions forbid giving a deputationist a scale of pay which she is not already holding in her parent State and also because it was of the H opinion that looking to her past performance as Principal during her short stay, it was considered that she would not be a suitable person • • )._ • A B c D E p G H • • 964 SUPREMl COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. to be appointed as Principal. The Chandigarh Administration also pointed out that they were still prepared to take back Smt. Champa Malhotra as Principal of the Institute despite the inquiry against her. It But, the Government of Haryana maintained complete disdained from replying to this letter or from relieving Smt. Champa Malhotra. silence. It would, therefore, >appear that right from March 7, 1974 till August 14, 1974 when the Chandigarh Administration forwarded re quisition to the Union Public Service Commission to advertise the post for direct recruitment, i.e. for nearly 6 months, the Government of Haryana took no action in the matter. During this period, it persiJ;ted in its stand in forwarding n panel of names of officers carried on the scale of Rs. 30Qc500 and when it was fully apprised about true legal position by the Chandigarh Administration expressing their inability to take an officer working in a lower grade or to take back the appellant as Principal of the Institute, it still insisted in sponsor ing her name, although this could not be done. This attitude of the Government of Haryana was just Chandigarh Administration by their letter dated August 20, 1974, i.e., just within six days of the requisition did what was expectetl of them and duly informed the Government of Haryana of their decision recruit a Principal through the Commission and requested that it may direct the eligible officers from Ha1yana to apply for the post. In response, the Government of Haryana by its letter dated September 27/30, 1974 registered a protest staking a claim as if the post of Principal of the Institute was a Haryana-quova post, i.e., it could be filled in only by an officer on deputation from the State of Haryana. In spite of repeated letters sent by the Chandigarh Administration, the Government of Punjab also did not send up the name of a suitable In view of these circumstances, it cannot be asserted that officer. there was any breach of the instructions issued by the Central Govern ment under s. 84 of the Act, if at all they were applicable. inexplicable. Nevertheless, Viewed from any angle, we must hold that the Chandigarh Ad- ministration was within their rights in making the appointment to the post of Principal, Government Central Craf, js Institute for Women, Chandigarh by direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission. Thus the appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lata Dewan. as Principal of the Institute '-''aS not invalid as be; ng con- trary to the directions issued by the Central Government under s. 84 of the Act inasmuch as the mid d'recUons were not applicable and also because there was no breach thereof, if at all they applied. ~ Al • SWARAN cATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 965 That leads us to the other branch of the appellant's contention, and the question arises whether in the case of this particular post could the Union Public Service Commission have relaxed the essential quali fioations ? The appellant has nowhere alleged in the writ pe.tition that the Union Public Service Commission had no authority to relax the essential qualifications. On in para 21 thereof : the contrary, she averts "Though the Union Public Service Commission has the power of relaxing the qualifications but the said power can not be exercised arbitrarily." In view of this udmission, she cannot be heard to say that the Union Public Service Commission had not such power. Since however the point was argued at length, we think it necessary to deal with it. It is undisputed that there is no statute or regulation having the force of law, by which any qualifications are prescribed for the post of Principal of the Institute. Nor has the Administrator framed uny rules to regulat<> the method of recruitment to such post, or faying down the qualifications necessary for appointment to the post or the condi tions of service attached to the post. The Chandigarh Administration accordingly while sending up its requisition dated August 14, 1974 to the Union Public Service Commission, suggested certain essential and desirable qualifications, keeping in view the qualifications prescribed by the Government of India in the Training Manual quoted above. The nature and duties of the pest of Principal of the Institute are pri marily administrative in nature, but the qualifications prescribed were, however, essentially technical. The Commission, letter dated September 16, 1974 returned the requisition to the Chandi garh Administration, with the observation that they should lay down the qualifications keeping in view the nature and duties of the post. The Chandigarh Administration accordingly on January 2/4, 1975 forwarded a fresh requisition revising the qualifications for the post i.e, including 'Administrative Experience for three years'. Thereafter, the Commission on February 1, 1975 advertised the post with essential qualifications as suggested, with a relaxation clause. It will, therefore, appear that in the instant case, the e;lsential qualification' were pre5cribed by the Chandigarh Administration in consulration with the Commission and also that the Commission had in the advertise ment issued, reserved to itself the power to relax the qualifications in case of su.itable candidates. Where qualifications for eligibility are not prescnbed by rules, broad decisions as to the method of recruit This require- ment are taken in consultation with the Commission. therefore, by A B c D E F G H • • • • • A B c D E F G H 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f I~ 19 J 2 s.c.R. this particular case. The Chandigarh Adminis ment was fulfilled in tration was fully aware that the Commission had reserved to itself the power to relax the essential qmlifications. The Commission, there fore, acted within its powers in relaxing the qualifications of the candi In fact, the Chandigarh Administration dates called for interview. ratified the action of the Commission in making the appointment. The appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem LatJ Dewan cannot, therefore, be challenged on the ground that either the Commiss'on had. no power to relax the qualifications or that she did not possesss the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post. It is, however, strenuously urged on the strength of the. decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Omprakash v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.(') that the Union or the State Public Service Commissions cannot select a candidate who docs not possess the quali fications prescribed. We do not see how this decision is of any avail to the appellant. On the contrary, while laying down that the Gov ernment has to fill up posts by appointing those who are selected hy the Public Service Conm1ission and must adhere to the order of merit in the list of candidates sent by the Commission, it observed : "It is entirely in the wisdom and discretion of the Com mission what mode or method it would adopt. That subject to statutory provisions, if any. Where mm1mum qualifications for e!igiblity are prescribed by a statute or by the Government, the Public Service Commission cannot select a candidate who does not possess those qualifications. However, the Public Service Commission is free to screen the applicants, classify them in various categories according to their plus qualifications and/ or experience, and call for interyiew only those candidates who fall within those cate gories, eliminating others who do not satisfy these criteria." This decision, in our opinion, instead of supporting the appellanr goes against her. We are of the view that the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. S. B. Kohli & Anr. (') and that of the Bomb&y High Court in Maharashtra Stale Electricity Board Engineers' Association, Nagpur v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board(') arc both distinguish able on facts. In S. B. Kholrs case, this Court was concerned with interpretation of items 2 and 3 of Annexure. I to the Second Schedule (I) A.I.R. 1978 M.P. 59. (2) [1973] 3 S.C.R. 117. (3) A.I.R. 1968 Born. 65. SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 967 of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963, as nmended, which pres cribed "a post-graduate degree in the concerned speciality", and the question was whether the qualification of F.R.C. 5 satisfied the quali fication prescribed for the post of Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery. It was held that the Regulations framed by the Medical Council re quired that in addition to the general F.R.C. 5, a Snrgeon must have a diploma in Orthopaedics before he could be appointed a Profess~r, Reader or Lecturer in Orthopaedics. It was said that to hold other wise, would me3n that a person who has the qualification of F.R.C. 5 would be deemed to be specialised in Orthopaedics, without his hav ing any snch qualification. • In the Maharashtra State Electricity Board's case, (supra) Board, which is a statutory Corporation, made the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (Classification and Recruitment) Regulations, 1961, in exercise of its powers under s. 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Regulation 8 invests the power of modification of minimum qualifica tions or exeperience required for the various categories of posts only in the B·oard. Regulation 21,, however, confers power on the Selection Committee to recommend, in deserving cases, relaxntion of the age limit and educational or other qualifications. The Board issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Executive Engineer (E&M). The advertisement nowhere mentioned that the minimum requirements of qualifications and experience were liable to be relaxed. This res·cJ!ted in deni'al of equal opportunity to the departmental candi dates who could have applied when the post was advertised, if it was known that the qualifications and experience, as advertised, were not rigid and liable to relaxation. The High Court accordingly struck down the direct recruitment of a person to the post of Executive Engi neer (E&M) since the advertisement effectively prevented the deFart mental candidates from applying for the post, because their period of experience was less than the advertised one, holding that, in effect, this was tantamount to a denial of equal opportunity to them in viola tion of Article 16 (I) . In our view, the decision turned on its own facts. A B c D E F G In the present case, as already pointed out, there was no statute or regulation having the force of law by which any qualifications were prescribed for the post of Principal. There were also no rules framed to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of the post under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. power of the Chandigarh Administration in the absence of any law or rules, to prescribe the essential qualifications for direct recruitment It was the exclusive H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1979) 2 S.C.R. A B c D E }1 G H the post, and, accordingly the qualifications were prescribed in con sultation with the Commission. The Commission while adverfr;:p the post, had reserved to itself the power to relax the qualifications It is not that the Commission had relaxed one of in deserving cases. the essential qualifications viz. Teehuology of three years duration', in the case of respondent No. 6 alone. There were three other candidates who were also interviewed in relaxation of essential qualifications Nos. (ii) and (iv). The affi davit of Dr. A. C. J\lathai, Under Secretary in the Union Public Ser vice Commission shows that in the case of Commission relaxed essential qualification No. (ii), as under : qualification No. (ii) 'Diploma respondent No. 6, "Requirement of Diploma of Industrial 'training of two years' duration". It is noteworthy that essential qualification No. 2, as advertised was 'Diploma in Technology of three years· duration or Diploma of Indus trial Training of two years' duration with one year's teachers ing/C.T.l.' Indeed, respondent No. 6 had essential qualification No. 2. The word 'or' made the two clauses disjunctive, and they were in the alternative. Respondent No. 6 besides being a graduate in Arts also held a three years' Diploma in Home Science from Lady IrwiR Coliege, Delhi. . It is a matter of common knowledge that Home Science, in some countries called 'don1cstic economics' or 'domestic science'. is a broad field of learning integrating the subject-matters of several disciplines to form a body of knowledge focussed on the problems of the home and their living. It is concerned with all phases of home life and includes the following subjects : child devclop\)lent and family relationships; clothing, textiles and related arts; family economics and home manage ment; food and nutrition; housing and house management. Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 3rd ed., Vol. II. p. 2253 gives the meaning of 'Technology' as : "a discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the ter1nino scientific study of logy of a particular art or subject: the children." In Webster's ]'!ew International Dictionary, 2nd ed., vol. IV, p. 2590 apart from giving it the n1eaning of "industrial science'', also conveys to it the meaning : "any science or systematic knowlcdge of the industrial arts.'' • • • ... SWARAN LATA .. l.'.NIQN ~Sen, J.) 969 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. gives, some of the meanings of the term as : 1349 A "the application of knowledge for practical ends, as in a particular field : edui:ational technology; the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical non1enclature." Though in its primary sense it is true that the word 'Technology' in volves a technical process, invention, method of the like, in the broader sense it embraces non-engineering related curricula pertaining applied and graphic arts, education, health-care, nutrition, etc. i.e. it includes technique or prmessiona! skill in any of the subjects enume rated above. The expression 'Diploma in Technology' is,. therefore, C wide enough to include a Diploma in Home Science. • ..,._ In S. B. Koh/i's case (supra) this Court observed : "This argument was based on the provision in the An- nexure I to the Second Schedule which states that the qooli fications are relaxablc at C01mnission's discretion in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified. That is no doubt so. Bnt the discretion is given ouly to the Union Public Service Commission in cases of direct recruitment and not to the Departmental Promotion Committee in cases of promotion. As that is the intent of the Jaw it has to be given effect to." It was then observed : "Moreover, the Union Public Service Commission when it proceeds to fill up a post by direct recruitment does so by calling for applications by extensive advertisements and it is but reasonable that if on a consideration of all those appli cations it finds that persons possessing the prescribed quali fications are not a»ailable but there arc persons otherwise well·qualified, they may be selected." D E F The Union Public Service Commission was, wrong in selecting respondent No. 6 as a suitable candidate for post. therefore, perhaps not G The next question for consideration is whether there was bias. We are unable to hold from the material on record that there was any bias on the part of Dr. 0. S. Sehgal Director, Technical Educa- tion, Chandigarh or that he influenced the members of the Selection Committee in any manner, so as to vitiate the selection of respondent H No. 6. In ou_r view, the allegations in the writ petition are not suffi- cient to constitute an avern1ent of 111alafides or bias on the part of A n c D E F G H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. either the Chandigarh Admu1istrntion or in particular against Dr. 0. S. Sehgal sufficient to vitiate the appointment of respondent No. 6. No malafides as such are imputed against the Union Public Service Com mission. The Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investi gation into allegations of malafides, if necessary particulars of charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the writ petition. The burden of establishing malafides lies very heavily on the person who alleges. The Division Bench has pointed out, and we think rightly so, that the principles laid down in Kraipak's case (supra) were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It rightly observes that no question of malafides or bias arises as it is clear from the Jetter written by Dr. 0. S. Sehgal dated October 9, 1974 to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration wherein he had not said a word against t11e appellant. All that he said in his capacity as Director, Technical Education was that on account of the failure to appoint a Principal for quite sometime the Institute was in a bad condition, and that although lie had given charge to the Vice Principal, she did not prove effective, suggesting that the Government of Haryana should be requestccl to lend the services of Smt. Choampa Malhotra as he was prepared to take her back as she had worked for a long time as Principal, in order that the work of the Institute should not suffer. The whole tenor of the document shows that it was written in the best int<crests of the institution. He as the Direc tor of Technical Education was solely responsible for the due adminis tration of the Institute. The Division Bench has also rightly held that no inference of malafides arises from the letter written by Sri B. S. Ojha, Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration elated October 11/14, 1974. All that is said is that Dr. 0. S. Sehgal, Director, Technical Educa tion, 'for reasons best known to him', did not went to appoint appellant and, therefore, 'must have played an important part at the meeting of the Selection Committee' and was 'able to prevail upon the other members' to select the respondent No. 6 with a view so that the <1ppellant wl10 was better qualified should not be selected. The appellant further averred that she h•ad in her representation dated May 1, 1975, alleged that after the interview she had overheard Dr. 0. S. Sehgal talking to the third Lady member, saying as to 'how they conld take this Lady', meaning the appellant, 'as the Principal' and, there fore, she felt that she was a victim of the machination of Dr. Sehgal. There is nothing on record to substantiate such general and vague allegations of the •appellant as to ma/afides or bias on the part of Dr. • • • t SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 971 Sehgal. Dr. Sehgal in his counter-affidavit has controverted insinuations made against him. Not a word was said at the hearing about the alleged utterance attributed to him. Nothing was brought to our notice to show ill-will or malice on his part. The entire argu ments are built around the two letters, the one written by Dr. 0. S. Sehgal dated October 9, 1974 to the Home Secretary, and the other addressed by Sri B. S. Ojha, Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administra tion to> Sri S. N. Bhanot, Secrcl'ary to the Government of Haryana, Industrial Training Department. ·• • Dr. A. C. Mathai, Under Secretary, Union Public Service Com mission has on affidavit stated that the Commission relaxed some of the essential qualifications after applying its own mind, uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations, and denied, in particular, that the Commission was advised by any extraneous authority. Dr. 0. S. Sehgal as Representative of the Chandigarh Administration was asso ciated only as an Expert Member and his only duty was to apprise the Chairman of the Selection Committee as to the nature of duties to be performed by the selected candidate. There was nothing wrong in the Union Public Service Commission taking such expert advice. We are informed that the Selection Committee had also selected the appel lant for the post of Principal although, on evaluation of comparative merits and de-merits placed her as No. 2 while the respondent No. 6 was placed as No. 1. This circumstance clearly shows that the Selec tion Committee was wholly uninfluenced by any other consideration except merit. Conrt laid down that he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any Act for· Order, must establish faith and abuse or misuse by Government of its powers. The allegations which me -0£ a personal nature are not borne out at all. Further, the allegations are wholly irrelevant and even if true, would not afford a basis upon which the appellant would be entitled to any relief. On the appel lanfs own showing, Dr. 0. S. Sehgal as Director, Technical Educa tion recorded appreciation of her as Principal of the Institute. This clearly shows that he had no particular animus against her. In S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab(') the charge of bad Furthermore, as the Division Bench observes, merely because Sri B. S. Ojha, Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration addressed a letter to Sri S. N. Bhanot, Secretary to the Government of Hmyana, Industrial Training Department dated October 11/14, 1974 express ing his unwillingness to take the appellant on deputation because sl1e was not holding a substantive rank in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900, (l):A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72 • . ·~ A B c D F G H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1979] 2 S.C.R. A B contrary to the instructions of the Government of India and alllo be cause the Chandigarh Administration felt that looking to her past performance as Principal during her short stay, she was not a suitJable person to be appointed as Principal, does not necessarily give rise to an inference of bias on the part of the Chandigarh Administration or Dr. 0. S. Sehgal, Director of Technical Education. These were all matters within the competence of the Chandigarh Administration and it was for them to decide the suitability of candidate for appointment. There is nothing to suggest that the reasons given by the Home Secre tary were not his own reasons based upon his own information. It is needless to stress that the Home Secretary to the Government of a State holds a very sensitive position and is the nerve centre of administration fully conversant with the realities. For aught we know, the Home Secretary had his own sources of information. D E G H In any event, the appellant cannot approbate and reprobate. She had willingly, of her own accord, and without any persuasion by any one, applied for the post, in response to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission for direct recruitment. She, therefore, took her chance and simply because the Selection Committee did not find her suitable for appointment, she cannot be he<ard to say that the selection of respondent No. 6 by direct recruitment through the Commission was invalid, as being contrary to the directions issued by the Central Government under s. 84 of the Act or that the Com functions of the mission had exceeded its powers, by usurping the Chandigarh Administration, in relaxing the essential qualifications of the rnndidates called for interview or that respondent No. 6 was not eligible for appointment inasmuch as she did not possess the requisite· essential qualifications. She fully know that under the terms of the advertisement, the Commission had reserved to itself the power to relax any of the essential qualifications. With this full knowledge, she applied for the post and she appeared at the interview. We are clearly of the opinion that the appellant is precluded from urging these grounds. Lastly, the contention of rcsponrlent No. 7. S1nt. Usha Wadhwa that the failure of the Union Public Service Conunission to re-adver tise the post prevented her from aoplyine. for the post and thereby there was denial of eaual opportunity to her in violation of Article 16(1) can be easily disposed of. qualifications can be made when an advertisement has duly been issued inviting applications and persons possessing the qualifications -adver tised, as prescribed by the rules, are available and submitted If a relaxation has to be made, there is a duty their applications. It is trne that no relaxation •. ~. SWARAN LATA v. UNION (Sen, J.) 97 3 cast to re-advertise the post. In the instant case, however, the adver tisement itself cont'ained a relaxation clause and, therefore, nothing prevented respondent No. 7 from making an application, if she felt that she was better, if not equally, qualified as respondent No. 6. The contention appears to be an afterthought and must be rejected. In conclusion, we cannot but express our sympathy for the appei lant. This unfortunately is a situation of her own making. The Courts can only act where there is any infringement of a right but not merely on equitable considerations. We wish to mention that the counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration very fairly sug gested that if the Government of Haryana were to forward the name of an officer immediately senior to the appellant in the cadre of Head Mistresses, who may be holding a post in the pay scale of Rs: 350-900 for appointment on deputation in an equivalent post, such officer could be absorbed by the Chandigarh Administration in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900. That being so, the appellant could still be saved from the predicament of being posted as a Head-Mistress in the pay scale of Rs. 300-500 on her reversion to her parent State. This is, ever, a matter for the Haryana Government to decide. B c D The result, therefore, is that the apprnl fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as lo costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed E ' • ~- • ' •