Was the writ petition maintainable against ISI?

Yes. ISI’s Council was held to be an ‘authority’ under Article 12, so a writ could be maintained.

Did the vacancy for Director need public notice?

Yes. The bye-law contemplated publicity. Without it, all eligible candidates could not be said to have been considered.

Did the Court compare who was the ‘better’ candidate?

No. The Court does not pick between merits when an eminent Council makes the choice on relevant considerations.

What about actions already taken by the appointed Director?

They were left undisturbed; the ruling did not invalidate actions already performed by the Director.

B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute

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

Is ISI under Article 12? Must the Director’s vacancy be publicized? How far can courts review academic appointments?

Citation: AIR 1984 SC 363 Supreme Court Public Law • Service Law ~6 min read India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 23 Oct 2025 Keywords: Article 12, vacancy publicity, ISI director, writ maintainability

Hero image for B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute case explainer

Quick Summary

The Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) is controlled by the Union Government and is an Institute of National Importance. A challenge was made to the selection of the Director. The Court first decided that ISI’s Council is an “authority” under Article 12. So, a writ petition was maintainable.

Next, the Court said the Director’s vacancy must be publicized as the bye-laws contemplated. Without proper notice, it cannot be claimed that all eligible persons were considered. However, the Court did not pick who was the better candidate, and did not undo actions already taken by the appointed Director.

Issues

Is the writ petition against ISI’s Council maintainable?
Do the bye-laws require publicity of the Director’s vacancy before selection?

Rules

Article 12: Bodies under pervasive government control can be “State/authority,” making writs maintainable.
Selection deference: Courts do not compare individual merit when an eminent Council has made a choice on relevant inputs.
Bye-law publicity: If the bye-law expects public notice, the vacancy should be advertised so all eligible candidates have a fair chance.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline: ISI structure, vacancy, selection without broad publicity, Supreme Court ruling

ISI registered under the Societies Registration Act; later governed by the ISI Act, 1959.

Declared an Institute of National Importance; Union of India exercises pervasive control.

The Council (25 members, including Central Government reps) is ISI’s chief executive body.

A Director handles academic and administrative work; appointment challenged for lack of proper publicity and on comparative merit claims.

Supreme Court: Writ maintainable (Article 12). Vacancy should be publicized per bye-law. Court will not rank candidates. Actions already taken by the Director remain valid.

Arguments

Petitioner (B.S. Minhas)

ISI is under government control → writ lies.
Bye-laws required publicity; many eligible candidates were not considered.
On merit, petitioner was superior to the selected person.

Respondents (ISI & Ors.)

Selection by an eminent Council; courts should not sit in appeal on merit choices.
Process followed institutional norms; appointment should stand.
Administrative continuity requires protecting past acts of the Director.

Judgment

Maintainability: ISI’s Council is an Article 12 authority. The writ petition is maintainable.

Vacancy publicity: The bye-law contemplated public advertisement. Without proper notice, it cannot be said that all qualified persons were considered. No merit comparison was undertaken by the Court, and actions already taken by the Director were kept intact.

Judgment visual: Article 12 maintainability and vacancy publicity requirement

Ratio Decidendi

(1) Bodies like ISI with deep Central control fall within Article 12. (2) Where bye-laws envisage publicity for a top post, open advertisement is expected to ensure fair consideration. (3) Courts avoid ranking candidates; they review process, not merit.

Why It Matters

Confirms writ remedy against premier institutes under government control.
Sets a fairness norm: publicize vacancies for leadership roles if bye-laws expect it.
Preserves institutional autonomy by avoiding merit comparisons.

Key Takeaways

ISI Council = Article 12 authority → writ lies.
Advertise high posts if bye-laws require publicity.
Courts examine process, not who is “better”.
Past acts of the appointed Director remain valid.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “A-P-D: Authority • Publicize • Don’t-compare”

Authority: Check Article 12 control.
Publicize: Bye-law expects open notice.
Don’t-compare: Court reviews process, not rankings.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is a writ maintainable against ISI?	Article 12 covers authorities under pervasive State control.	ISI Council had Central control and public functions.	Yes, writ maintainable.
Must the Director’s post be publicized?	Bye-law expects notice so all eligible can apply.	No broad publicity; limited pool considered.	Publicity required; process flawed.
Should Court select the “better” candidate?	Courts defer to expert bodies on merit choices.	Council comprised eminent persons.	Court does not compare merit; process only.

Glossary

Article 12: Defines “State” to include authorities under government control, enabling writs.
Bye-law Publicity: Requirement to advertise a vacancy so all eligible candidates can apply.
Judicial Review (Process): Court checks fairness and legality of the method, not comparative merits.

FAQs

Because ISI’s Council functions as an Article 12 authority under government control.

The vacancy was not properly publicized as contemplated by the bye-law, limiting fair competition.

No. It deferred to the expert Council and examined only the fairness of the process.

They remained valid; the judgment did not upset past administrative acts.

Publication Details

CASE_TITLE: B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 363
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 12 Authority; Vacancy Publicity; Writ Maintainability; ISI Director Selection
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Bye-laws; Process Review; Administrative Law; Higher Education Governance