Trace Your Case


B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 363


  • Whether the petition was maintainable?
  • Whether the bye-law requires the vacancy of the director and whether it should be publicized?


  • It is not for the court to decide who is superior to the two candidates’ members of the Council was eminent persons and they may be presumed to have taken into account all relevant considerations before concluding.


  • The Indian Statistical Institute was registered under the Societies Registration Act, and governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959. Its control is completely vested in the Union of India, Respondent no.5 in the appeal.
  • The Institute had been declared as an ‘Institute of National Importance. Respondent no. 2 the chief executive body of the institute which consisted of 25 members of which 3 were representatives of the Central Government.
  • Respondent no.4 a director was appointed to discharge academic and administrative duties of the institute. 
  • The petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent no. 4 because he was much more highly qualified academically and had accomplishments and is far superior to the said Respondent.


  • The Supreme Court declared Respondent no.2 is an authority under and within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore the writ petition is maintainable. 
  • In the absence of publicity as contemplated by bye-law, it cannot be said that all other qualified persons like the petitioner were also considered by the selection committee for an appointment, in the absence of any application by them for the post or any recommendation of them by any other authority or individual.
  • The court further decided this will however not in any way affect the validity of any action already taken by Respondent No. 4.