Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal

AIR 1967 SC 1857; (1967) 3 SCR 377

Citation
AIR 1967 SC 1857; (1967) 3 SCR 377
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
3 April 1967
Bench
K. Subba Rao C.J.; J.C. Shah; J.M. Shelat; V. Bhargava; G.K. Mitter

Facts

  • Mohan Lal and several other employees originally worked as foremen under the Electricity Department of the Rajasthan Government.
  • When the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, these employees were provisionally transferred to the Board.
  • The Board had not framed independent rules fixing their grades, seniority, or conditions of service.
  • Mohan Lal was later sent on deputation to the Public Works Department while retaining his lien in the Electricity Board.
  • During his deputation, several employees junior to him were promoted as Assistant Engineers.
  • After Mohan Lal returned to the Board, he was not considered for promotion on the same basis.
  • He challenged this unequal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
  • The Board argued that it was not “State” within Article 12 and, therefore, fundamental rights could not be enforced against it.

Issue

  • Whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was an “authority” and therefore “State” under Article 12.
  • Whether the expression “other authorities” in Article 12 was confined only to bodies exercising sovereign or governmental functions.
  • Whether the Board violated Articles 14 and 16 by failing to provide Mohan Lal an equal opportunity for promotion.

Rule

  • Article 12 includes:
  • the Government and Parliament of India;
  • State Governments and State Legislatures;
  • local authorities; and
  • “other authorities” within India or under the control of the Government of India.
  • The expression “other authorities” must be interpreted broadly.
  • It is not restricted only to bodies performing traditional governmental or sovereign functions.
  • A statutory body possessing powers conferred by law may fall within Article 12 even when it conducts commercial or public utility activities.
  • Once a body is included within Article 12, its actions must comply with fundamental rights, including equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Application

  • The Court rejected the Board’s argument that “other authorities” should be interpreted narrowly by applying the rule of ejusdem generis.
  • It explained that the authorities already named in Article 12—government, legislatures and local authorities—did not form one single, clearly identifiable category.
  • Therefore, there was no common genus that could restrict the meaning of “other authorities.”
  • The Electricity Board was created directly by a statute and possessed extensive statutory powers.
  • It was authorised to:
  • generate and distribute electricity;
  • frame regulations;
  • give binding directions;
  • acquire property;
  • employ staff; and
  • enforce certain directions through statutory penalties.
  • These were not merely private contractual powers. They were powers created and supported by law.
  • The Court emphasised that the commercial character of electricity supply did not remove the Board from Article 12.
  • A governmental instrumentality may carry out commercial activities and still remain constitutionally accountable.
  • Since the Board was an authority under Article 12, its employment decisions were subject to Articles 14 and 16.
  • Mohan Lal had retained his lien in the Board while serving on deputation.
  • His temporary absence could not justify ignoring him while considering his juniors for promotion.
  • The Board had not established any valid rule or reasonable classification that justified the difference in treatment.
  • Therefore, denying him an equal opportunity for consideration was constitutionally discriminatory.
  • Justice Shah agreed that the Board was subject to fundamental rights, although he preferred a narrower approach based on whether the statutory body possessed governmental or sovereign-type powers.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was an “authority” under Article 12.
  • The expression “other authorities” includes statutory bodies empowered by law and is not limited to bodies performing traditional sovereign functions.
  • The Board was therefore required to comply with Articles 14 and 16.
  • Its failure to give Mohan Lal an equal opportunity for promotion was unconstitutional.