Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal

Mohan Lal and eleven other employees were originally permanent employees of the State government. In 1958, a notification placed them at the disposal of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, so their services were kept with the Board on a temporary basis. The Board was supposed to frame new grades and service rules for these employees, but it did not do so in time.

Meanwhile, the Board promoted the other eleven employees to the post of Assistant Engineer. At that time Mohan Lal was on deputation with the government's Public Works Department. Deputation means sending an employee to work temporarily in another department. When he returned to the Board, he was not promoted, even though everyone else in his batch had already been promoted.

Mohan Lal filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226. He said he had been discriminated against, in violation of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). The High Court held that he deserved the same treatment as the other eleven employees. It quashed their promotions and directed the Board to reconsider all the promotions afresh, this time including Mohan Lal's claim.

The Board appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued that it was not 'State' at all, so the High Court had no power to give it such a direction.

1. Could the Rajasthan State Electricity Board be treated as 'State' under Article 12? This was the key question.

2. Had the Board violated Articles 14 and 16 in the matter of promotion?

3. Could Mohan Lal be regarded as an employee of the Board?

Board (appellant):

1. Mohan Lal had never been its permanent employee, only a provisional one, so he could not claim promotion.

2. The Board was an independent legal entity and not a direct part of the government. It was a commercial body engaged in the supply of electricity.

3. For this reason it was not 'State' under Article 12, and so the High Court could not issue a writ against it.

4. It relied on University of Madras v. Shantha Bai. There the Madras High Court had held that 'other authorities' means only bodies similar to those already listed in Article 12, that is, bodies performing governmental functions, and that a university was not such a body. The Board also cited a case relating to Punjab University to argue that not every statutory body is 'State'.

Mohan Lal (respondent):

1. The term 'other authorities' in Article 12 is very broad. Any statutory authority created under law and exercising authority over people can be 'State'.

2. The Board was a public administrative agency with quasi-governmental (semi-governmental) powers. It did not merely carry on commercial business. It also exercised authority of a governmental character.

3. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh had said that 'other authorities' should not be read narrowly.

4. So the Board was 'State' under Article 12, and fundamental rights applied against it.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Board's appeal with costs.

1. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a statutory authority created under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.

2. The term 'other authorities' in Article 12 must be read broadly. The rule of ejusdem generis does not apply here. Ejusdem generis means that a general word following specific words takes a meaning similar to those words. The bodies listed in Article 12 (Government, Parliament, Legislature and local authorities) do not share one common category. So 'other authorities' cannot be limited to bodies of that same kind. The Court relied on Ujjam Bai for this view.

3. Majority test (opinion by Justice V. Bhargava): every authority created by the Constitution or by a statute, and given powers under law, falls within 'other authorities'. The Board could issue directions, and anyone who disobeyed them could face criminal liability. So it had coercive power, meaning the power to enforce compliance through the force of law.

4. Commercial activity did not take the Board outside Article 12, because the Constitution itself recognises that the State can carry on trade and business. The Board was an authority performing public functions.

5. Concurring opinion (Justice J. C. Shah): he reached the same result but used a narrower test. In his view, only authorities that have the sovereign power of the State, meaning the power to make rules and regulations and enforce them, are 'State'.

6. On the merits, the High Court was right. Mohan Lal, like the other eleven employees, was in the service of the Board, and the Board had denied him equal opportunity for promotion.

Constitution of India, Article 12; Constitution of India, Article 14; Constitution of India, Article 16; Constitution of India, Article 226; Electricity Supply Act, 1948

This was the first case to give a wide meaning to 'State' under Article 12. It held that statutory authorities exercising public power are 'State', so writs can be issued against them when they violate fundamental rights.

It is the starting point of the Article 12 line of cases: Sukhdev Singh (statutory corporations such as O.N.G.C. and L.I.C.), then the instrumentality or agency test in R. D. Shetty and Ajay Hasia, and finally the 'deep and pervasive control' test in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (the lecture also links it to Zee Telefilms).

For exams, remember four things: 'other authorities' is read broadly, ejusdem generis is rejected, commercial activity is no bar, and the Court drew support from Ujjam Bai. Also remember the difference between the majority test and Justice Shah's narrower test.

Hypothetical: A State law creates a Water Supply Board. The Board can issue binding directions to the public, and disobeying them is punishable. Zoya and Farhan joined the Board in the same batch. While Zoya is on deputation to another department, the Board promotes Farhan and all her other batchmates but ignores her. Zoya files a writ petition. The Board argues that it is only a commercial body selling water and is not 'State'. Applying Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, the court would hold that the Board is a statutory authority with legal powers and therefore 'State' under Article 12. Its commercial activity is no bar. So Zoya can enforce Articles 14 and 16 against it.