Civil Appeal No 1068 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 16586 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2523 of 1981
AK Sil and SK Sinha for the Appellants
DN Goburdhan for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R The 1st respondent Subodh Chandra is working as an operator grade III under the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd at Sindhri
The date of birth recorded in the register maintained by the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd was 161931 and in the usual course he has to retire from service on 161989 on completion of 58 years of age
He however filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna claiming that his date of birth should be altered to 20th October 1938
In support of his case he relied on a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer Sindhri
The petition was contested by the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Judge who heard the petition held that it was not possible to accept the case of the 1st respondent that he was born in the year 1938 and he further found that the date of birth as recorded in the register of the Corporation should not be interfered with
The learned Judge however passed the following order section Shamsul Hasan J After the matter had been heard at great length and legal and factual pros and cons had been examined it appeared that the year of the birth of the petitioner being 1931 cannot be assailed nor interfered with
Consequently Mr Ojha felt that since the petitioner has his problem domestic or otherwise and he in 1971 was in fact given to understand that his year of birth would be 1938 some compassionate endowment may be made in his favour
I am entirely in agreement with Mr Ojha
I therefore dispose of this application with an expression of my desire which may be treated as a mandate that the petitioner may be given three more years of service as a 864 special case after his due date of retirement which could be done by reappointing him for that period
It is made clear that this may not be treated as a precedent for any other employee of the Institution or in any other case
 We are of opinion that the learned Single Judge having found that the date of birth of the 1st respondent as recorded in the register of the appellant Corporation should not be interfered with committed a serious error in making an order directing the appellant Corporation as a special case  to reappoint the 1st respondent for a period of three more years after his due date of retirement  which is 161989
There was hardly any justification for passing such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution
The reason given by the High Court is wholly untenable
This appeal filed by the Corporation against the order passed by the learned Single Judge before this Court has therefore to be allowed
We set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
No order as to costs
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The respondents members of the United Basel Mission Church UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif Mangalore praying for a declaration that the resolution dated May 9 1961 passed in the extraordinary meeting of the District Church Council of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg proposing the merger of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg with the Church of South India CSI
was void illegal and ultra vires the constitution of the UBMC and also the provisions of the Religious Societies Act 1880 and not binding on the respondentsplaintiffs or other members of the UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg
The suit was contested by the appellants defendants
The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that i the suit was maintainable but the respondents were not entitled to file the suit in a representative character representing the UBMC of South Kanara  Coorg ii there was no fundamental difference between the UBMC and CSI and iii the impugned resolution was legal and valid
The respondents filed appeal against the judgment of the trial court
which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge who however held that the respondents were entitled to file the suit in a representative character
The respondents preferred a second appeal to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge
The High Court Single Judge took a contrary view and allowed the appeal holding that there were fundamental differences in doctrine
faith tradition heritage and practices between UBMC and CSI
and the resolution impugned was illegal and void
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants moved this Court for relief by special leave
Allowing the appeal the Court 738  HELD It was well established that the dispute as to the right of worship was one of a civil nature within the meaning of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a suit was maintainable for the vindication or determination of such a right
It must be made clear that maintainability of the suit would not permit a Court to consider the soundness or propriety of any religious doctrine faith or rituals
The scope of enquiry in such a suit was limited to those aspects only that had a direct bearing on the question of right of worship and with a view to considering such a question the Court might examine the doctrines
faith
rituals and practices for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same interfered with the right of worship of the aggrieved parties
In view of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the enquiry should be confined to the disputes of a civil nature
Any dispute which was not of a civil nature should be excluded from consideration
745BD F Both the churches were Protestant Churches
The fundamental doctrines faith and belief appeared to be the same
Both UBMC and CSI believed in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son of God the Redeamer of the World
Both also believed that man was saved from sin through grace in Jesus Christ
Both believed in the Holy Spirit and in the Supreme Power of Holy Spirit and that there should be free access of man to God
745G H746A UBMC was a Presbyterian Church and the respondents did not believe in the concept of Episcopacy or apostolic succession associated with historic Episcopacy
UBMC was opposed to Episcopacy but Episcopacy adopted by the CSI was not that historic Episcopacy but historic Episcopacy in a constitutional form
The CSI believed that in all ordinations and consecrations the true ordainer and consecrater was God
From all this the irresistible conclusion was that there was neither apostolic succession nor historical Episcopacy in CSI as contended on behalf of the respondents
746B CE F The respondents placed much reliance on the universal priesthood
That was said to be prevalent in UBMC
The submission in this regard however did not find support from the constitution of UBMC
The universal priesthood which was said to be prevalent in UBMC did not permit lay preachers and Evangelists to administer the sacraments
747CG In the CSI Presbyters had the authority to administer the sacraments and in the UBMC the Pastors who were ordained ministers were authorised to administer the sacraments
There was therefore no 739 distinction between a pastor in the UBMC and a Presbyter in the CSI
As the functions and duties of Presbyters and Pastors were the same and as both of them were ordained ministers no exception could be taken by the respondents if the sacraments were administered by Pastors instead of the Presbyters
No objection could also be taken to the Bishops administering the sacraments for they did not emerge from the apostolic succession which was the main characteristic of historical episcopacy
If the respondents or any members of the UBMC had any Objection to the administering of sacraments by the Bishops the sacraments could be administered by the Presbyters
The Malabar and Bombay Karnataka Units of UBMC had already joined the CSI
The CSI had accepted already the form of worship followed in the UBMC before the Union of the two units with the CSI and such acceptance was indicated in Rule 12 of Chapter II of the Constitution of the CSI and in view of this it was difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that in case of merger or implementation of the impugned resolution the right of worship of the impugned resolution the right of worship of the members of the UBMC would be affected
748A F After a person was appointed a Bishop or a Presbyter in the CSI or a Pastor in UBMC he had to be ordained in almost the same manner
The Court did not think it was within the purview of the enquiry in this litigation whether such ordination in the CSI had a spiritual significance of a transfer of grace or whether it was only a symbol of conferment of authority so far as UBMC was concerned
The mode or manner of ordination or the underlying object of such ordination had in the Court s opinion nothing to do with the right of worship of the respondents
749B C Both UBMC and CSI believed in Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed
If shorter Catechism as stated by DW t consisted of the Creeds in the form of questions and answers the Court did not think that merely because there was no mention about Shorter Catechism in the Constitution of the CSI it could be said that there was a difference in the faith and doctrine of the two Churches as held by the High rt 749F G There was no cause for apprehension of the respondents that in case of merger the Apocrypha would be imposed upon them which was repugnant to their religious faith in the liturgy of the CSI the prayer from Apocrypha had been made optional which showed that there was no scope for the imposition of Apocrypha on the respondents in the case of Union of UBMC and CSI
751A B 740 As regards the properties of the UBMC even though there was merger the properties or the income thereof would be utilised only for the benefit of the members of the UBMC of the South Kanara and Coorg
It was difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that in the case of merger there would be diversion of the properties in the hands of the UBMC Trust Association to the CSI in breach of trust
752B C There was little or no difference between the doctrines faith and religious views of UBMC and the CSI
The objection of the respondents to historical Episcopacy had no solid foundation inasmuch as historical Episcopacy was not in existence in the true sense of the term in the CSI and it was none in a constitutional form
In other words the Bishops were elected and Apostolic succession which was associated with historical Episcopacy was totally absent
The observations made in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland vs Lord overtoun  could not in any event be applicable to the facts of this case which are different from the said Free Church Case
753F H As regards the question whether the District Church Council had the authority to pass the impugned resolution it was true that the District Church Council had only the power of amendment of the Constitution and no power had been conferred on it to pass a resolution relating to the union of the UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg with the CSI but the Synod was the highest authority and the Synod of UBMC had the power to sanction merger of any unit of UBMC in the CSI and the Synod passed a resolution permitting the District Church Council of South Kanara and Coorg to join the Church of South India CSI
As the Synod was a representative body of the units it stood dissolved after passing the said resolution but until such a resolution was passed it existed as the highest authoritative and administrative body of the UBMC
757A B E F The challenge to the validity of the resolution impugned on the ground of violation of the provisions of section 6 of the Religious Societies Act 1880 was misconceived and without any substance
The section dealt with the dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs
There was no question of dissolution of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg and disposal of settlement of its property claims and liabilities etc and as such the provision of section 6 was not at all applicable to this case
758C D The Court disagreed with the High Court that the impugned 741 resolution violated the provision of section 6 of the Religious Societies Act and in view of the fact that the Synod had unanimously accorded permission for the merger the High Court was not justified in striking down the said resolution
On the ground that it was beyond the authority of the District Church Council to pass such a resolution
The impugned resolution was legal and valid
758E F Ugamsingh and Mishrimal vs Kesrimal 197l 2 SCR 836 Thiru venkata Ramanuja Pedda Jiyyangarlu Valu vs Prathivathi Bhayan Karam Venkatacharlu  General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland vs Lord overtoun and NP Barwell vs John Jackson AIR 1943 All 146