ivil Appeal No 3492 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 381988 of the Jammu  Kashmir High Court in LPA No 110 of 1988
NS Mathut Ramesh C Pathak G Venkatesh Rao and Baby Lal for the Appellant
EC Agarwala Ms Purnima Bhatt VK Pandita and Atul Sharma for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
Special leave granted
The School of Buddhist Philosophy Leh hereinafter called the School  is an affiliate institution of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University Banaras
The management of the School is in the hands of a society called Central Institute of Buddhist Studies Leh which is registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act
Ap pointments to various posts in the School are regulated by the rules framed by the Board of management in the year 1973
The academic and other qualifications for the post of Principal under the rules are as under 517 Academic Qualification At least Master s Degree in Humanities or Social Sciences with knowledge of Rules and Regulations procedures and Accounts
Experience Minimum experience of 7 years out of which at least 2 years should be in administration such as administrative Asstt
and not less than 3 years in teaching in Higher Secondary andor Degree classes
 The qualifications for the post of Administrative Officer under the 1973 rules are identical
ML Mattoo Respondent No 1 who was functioning as the Administrative Officer was given the additional charge of the post of Principal by an order dated March 26 1973 issued by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare Government of India New Delhi
The Board of Management in its meeting held on August 22 1978 decided that apart from the qualifications pre scribed under the Rules the person selected for the post of Principal should have a thorough academic background in Buddhist Philosophy
Pursuance to the said decision the qualificationsexperience for the post of Principal pre scribed under the Rules were revised as under Essential a A consistently good academic record possessing eminent scholarship in Buddhist Philosophy as a subject of specialisation at MA or Doctoral level
or Acharya Degree with research experience to Buddhist Philoso phy or equivalent
or An equivalent degree of traditional monastic education in Buddhism
518 b Evidence of research work andor public work in the field
Desirable a 5 years teaching experience in Buddhist Philosophy and allied subject at the degree level
b 5 years of administrative experience
 The Board of Management constituted a selection commit tee to appoint a suitable person as Principal of the School
By an order dated January 9 1979 one Shri Tashi Pal jot who fulfilled the revised qualifications was appointed as Principal of the School
Aggrieved by the said appointment ML Mattoo filed Civil Writ Petition No 256 of 1979 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that he was removed from the additional charge without affording an opportunity of heating to him and further that he was not considered by the selection committee
He contended that selection was liable to be quashed being violative of Arti cle 16 of the Constitution of India
The writ petition was resisted by the Management on the ground that it was not a State  under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition was not competent
At the hearing of the writ petition the counsel for the Management conceded that the society was a State  within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition could not be dismissed on that ground
The High Court rejected the contention of ML Mattoo that he was entitled to an oppor tunity of hearing or Article 311 was attracted
The High Court however allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not considered for the post of Principal and as such his right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India stood infringed The operative part of the High Court judgment is as under Mr VK Gupta has on the authority of Ajay Hasia s case supra frankly conceded that the society being an instru mentality or agency of Government of India was state  for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution as such the petitioner had a fundamental right to be considered for the post alongwith the third respondent
He not having been so considered and it also being admitted that he possessed the requisite qualifications the rule of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution stood clearly violat ed
That being so as in fact it is the impugned order 519 passed by the second respondent appointing the third re spondent as the Principal of the School has to be quashed
 Thereafter the Management advertised the post of Princi pal to be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of revised qualifications
The advertisement was published in the Kashmir Times  of January 5 1982
ML Mattoo filed another writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No 29 of 1982 challenging the advertisement on the ground that the revised qualifications had not been validly prescribed and as such the post of Principal could only be filled on the basis of the pre revised qualifications
According to him the revised qualifications were advertised only to make him ineligible for the post
The main thrust of Mattoo s argument was that his earlier writ petition was decided by the High Court on October 29 1981 wherein the counsel for the Management conceded that he possessed the requisite qualifications for the post of Principal
Admit tedly Matto does not possess the revised qualifications
According to him the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 1979 and had the qualifications been revised by amend ing the rules in 1978 the counsel for the management would have certainly brought the same to the notice of the Court and since it was not done there was factually no amendment to the rules
The High Court accepted the contention of Mattoo and allowed the writ petition by its judgment dated June 9 1988 on the following reasoning It is stated in para No 13 of their counter that qualifi cations were changed in August 1978 with the approval of the Govt
of India
This statement is not accepted for two reasons one that this was not the defence of the respond ents in writ petition No 2561979 in which petitioner s eligibility was granted by the High Court for the post of Principal and second that after the decision of the High Court granting eligibility to the petitioner for the post of Principal in writ petition No 2561979 the respondents plea on the basis of some policy or note whereby qualifica tions were changed in 1978 prior to the filing of the writ petition No 2561979 cannot be now pressed into service nor would be permitted to be made because same will be barred by doctrine of constructive res judicata
 The High Court quashed the advertisement dated January 5 520 1982 and restrained the management from filling the post of Principal on the basis of the impugned advertisement
The management has come up to this Court in appeal against the above said judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the proceedings of the meeting of the manage ment of the School held on August 22 1978
It was decided in the said meeting that the person selected for the post of Principal of the School must have academic background in Buddhist Philosophy in addition to the qualifications pre scribed under the Rules
Thereafter the amended qualifica tions which have been reproduced above were prescribed by the Board of Management
3 It is not disputed that the recruitment Rules could be altered by the Board of Management at any time with the sanction of the Government of India
Mr EC Agarwala appearing for the respondent ML Mattoo has however contended that the recruitment rules were never amended and in any case there was no sanction of the Government of India regarding the amended Rules
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our atten tion to the affidavit of Dr Mrs Kapila Vatsyayan Chair man Board of Management of the School filed before the High Court
Dr Kapila Vatsyayan is the Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Education and Cul ture
Para 13 of the affidavit is as under When in the year 1978 the question of appointment of a Principal of the school on regular basis was under the consideration of the Board of Management it was held that keeping in view the objects of the school being a research Institution to propogate Buddhist Philosophy a thorough academic background in Buddhist Philosophy was considered as one of the essential qualifications for the post of Princi pal of the School as will be evident from the extract from brief note on Agenda item I considered in the meeting of the Board of Management held on 22nd August 1978 Annexure IV
Shri Tashi Paljore was appointed as Principal as stated in para No 5 of the petition as he possessed this qualifica tion and was selected by a duly appointed Selection Commit tee
The contention of the petitioner that this qualifica tion has been added now after the decision of writ petition No 256 of 1979 is incorrect
As 521 stated above the qualifications were changed in August 1978 with the approval of Govt
of India
These qualifications are obviously very necessary for the fulfilling of the objectives of the Schools of Buddhist Philosophy Leh Ladakh
In the absence of these qualifications the very object for which the Institution exists is bound to be defeated
The qualification has been provided the interest of the Institution and for the attain ment of the object for which it exists namely imparting and propagating Buddhist Philosophy
The Recruitment Rules of 1975 Annexure D  to the petition were framed by the Board at that time
Under the Rules and Regulations of the Board the Board of Management is competent to amend the same   it is obvious from the affidavit of Dr Kapila Vatsyayan reproduced above that the qualifications for the post of Principal were revised by amending the Rules and the revised qualifications were approved by the Government of India
No 1 rejoinder was filed by ML Mattoo to the above affidavit The High Court was not justified in disbelieving the contents of the affidavit
The rules are not statutory
The Board of Management is fully competent to alter or amend the rules in any manner and at any time
The affidavit by the Chairman of the Board of Management who is additional Secre tary to Government of India to the effect that the rules were amended in 1978 with the approval of the Government of India should have put an end to the controversy
We have no hesitation in holding that the qualifications for the post of Principal of the School stood validly revised by the amendment of the Rules in August 1978
Since respondent No 1 Shri ML Mattoo does not possess the revised qualifica tions he is not eligible to be considered for the said post
In the earlier writ petition No 2561979 the question as to whether the qualifications for the post of Principal had been revised was not before the High Court
The main contention of the Management before the High Court was that the Management society was not a State  under Article 12 and as such no writ petition was competent
At the hear ing the counsel for the management however conceded that the society was a State  under Article 12 of the Constitu tion of India
It is no doubt that the High Court has men tioned that it 522 was admitted by the counsel for the Management that Mattoo possessed the requisite qualifications for the post but we do not understand how in the face of categoric affidavit of Dr Kapila Vatsyayan such a statement could be made before the High Court
We therefore hold that the qualificationsexperience for the post of Principal were validly revised by amending the Rules in August 1978
The advertisement issued on January 5 1982 was in accordance with the Rules and the High Court was not justified in quashing the same
We therefore allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by ML Mattoo before the High Court
There shall be no order as to costs
Y Lal Petition dismissed


Summary:
The plaintiffappellant is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh the ex ruler of Bushahr State in Himachal Pradesh
The erstwhile Ruler of Bushahr had sought the aid of the British Government in the management of his forests with a view to preserving conserving and protecting the same from large scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of trees
Pursuant to this request an agreement of lease dated 20th June 1864 was executed between the said Raja and the British Government
The terms of this agreement were revised in 1877 and again 1928
Before the expiry of its extended term another agreement of lease was executed between Raja Padam Singh and the Government of Punjab on 25th September 1942 superseding all previous agreements
By clause III of this agreement the Raja granted to the Punjab Government the entire and sole control of the forests of Bushahr excepting those reserved for his use under clause II thereof
The Raja was to receive in lieu thereof an annual payment of Rs1 lakh and further payment of the whole net surplus on the working of the forests included in the lease
Raja Padam Singh executed a document on 28th November 1942 whereby be bestowed upon the plaintiff and his mother land admeasuring about 1720 acres both measured and unmeas ured
The original document called the Patta was admitted ly lost during the minority of the appellant
The patta had however been referred to in the subsequent two grants executed by the Raja on 11th March 1943 and lOth December 1946
After the execution of the first grant or patta the 470 plaintiff s father had made an Order No 5158 directing corresponding mutation changes
The mutation entry besides mentioning the area of 2634 bighas also speaks of part of uncultivated Jagir 
Subsequently in September 1959 the plaintiff s forests were notified as private Forests  under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act 1954
But in July 1960 the State Government annulled the notifi cations on the ground that they were erroneously issued and that the lands in fact belonged to the Himachal Pradesh Administration
The plaintiff filed a suit on 18th November 1964 for a declaration his proprietary rights in about 1720 acres of forest land both measured and unmeasured
The learned Single Judge substantially decreed the suit
The learned single Judge held that i the plaintiff s father who in internal matters had sovereign powers had bestowed the lands in dispute as a perpetual and uncondi tional grant on the plaintiff ii the mere fact that in the mutation entry the areas was shown to be 2634 bighas did not imply that the grant was limited to that much land only iii in the State of Bushahr only cultivated land was generally measured and forest lands remained unmeasured and therefore the area of only revenue yielding cultivated land was mentioned in the mutation entry iv the evidence considered as a whole fully established that the grant was not rependiated but was given effect to by the Political Agent Simla as well as by the revenue authorities of Bushahr State and was also recognised by the Dominion of India at the time of the State s merger v even assuming that the lands in dispute formed part of forests leased to the Government of Punjab the Raja was not precluded from making the grant and the grants made in favour of the plain tiff were perfectly legal and valid vi after the lease was terminated on 11th April 1949 the Himachal Pradesh Administration treated the plaintiff as the owner and per mitted him various acts as owner and person in possession vii notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Act 1954 declaring the disputed land as private forests and viii the notification issued under section 29 of the had no application to such lands
The Division Bench allowing the State appeal inter alia took the view that after the execution of the lease deed dated 25th September 1942 in favour of the Government of Punjab the Raja had no surviving or subsisting right in the forest lands in question which he could transfer by way of a grant at the most the grant made by the erstwhile ruler could take effect in respect of revenue yielding lands only admeasuring 471 about 2635 bighas and not in respect of the forest lands and that the notification under section 29 of the was validly issued and so long as it held the field no notification could be issued under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act 1954
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1 The plaintiff s father had a surviving and subsisting right in the forest lands which the subject matter of the lease dated 25th September 1942 and was competent to grant the same to the plaintiff or anyone else albeit subject to the terms of the lease
486C 2 The paramount object of the lease was to conserve the forests of Bushahr State
By concluding the lease agree ment with the Punjab Government the Raja did not convey all his rights title and interest in the leased forest lands to the Government
All that he did was to transfer the control and management of the forests to the Punjab Government with a view to preserving and conserving the forests
He however retained his proprietary interest in the forest lands
Had it been the intention of the Raja to divest himself of all his interests in the forest lands there was no need to provide the duration of the lease on the expiry whereof unless the renewal clause was invoked the Raja would have a right of re entry
485G H 486A 3 The lease provided that in addition to the two half yearly installments of Rs50000 each the Raja was to receive payment of whole net surplus on the working of the forests included in the lease
This was consistent only with the position that the Raja retained his proprietary inter ests in the forest lands
486A B 4 If the terms of the document are clear and unambigu ous extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true intention of the parties is inadmissible because section 92 of the Evi dence Act mandates that in such a case the intention must be gathered from the language employed in the document
But if the language employed is ambiguous and admits of a variety of meanings it is settled law that the 6th proviso to the section can be invoked which permits tendering of extrinsic evidence as to acts conduct and surrounding circumstances to enable the Court to ascertain the real intention of the parties
491B C In such a case the subsequent conduct of the parties furnished evidence to clear the blurred area and to ascer tain the true intention of the author of the document
491D 472 Abdulla Ahmed vs Animendra Kissen Mitter   referred to
Since the words part of the uncultivated Jagir  were ambiguous extrinsic evidence allunde the grant became necessary to explain the coverage of those words
492A 6 There is intrinsic evidence to show that the grant was not limited to only the revenue yielding area of 2634 bighas
If by the grant the Raja intended to grant only the revenue yielding area of 2634 bighas there was no need to mention and part of uncultivated Jagir  and these words would be rendered redundant
The subsequent conduct of the parties lends support to this view
488H 489A 7 From the various documents placed on record it is quite clear that the disputed forests did not belong to the Government nor did the Government have any proprietary rights therein
The Government was also not entitled  to the whole or any part of the produce in its own right dehors the lease
493C 8 The word entitled  in the context of section 29 of the must take colour from the preceding words and must be understood to mean that the Government must have an independent claim or right to collect and deal with the same subject to an obligation to account for the same to the owner
On that account the State was not enti tled  to the forests produce from such private lands
There fore the notification issued under section 29 could have uo application to such private forests
The State Government was therefore competent to issue the two notifications under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act 1954 and it was not justified in annulling them on the erroneous premise that the said lands belonged to the State Government
493F 494F G