vil Appeal Nos 16 16 17 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 2251989 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No 277778  dated 5789 Review Petition No 68W89 in WP No 277778
K Parasaran Amitabh Misra section Murlidhar and MS Ganesh for the Appellant
PP Rao Raja Ram Aggarwal EC Aggarwala Atul Shar ma Ms Purnima Bhatt Mrs Shobha Dikshit Lokesh Kumar RD Kewalramani and MK Garg for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
Special Leave granted
The Chancellor of the Lucknow University while exercis ing power under Section 318a of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973 The Act has directed that Km
Neeliam Misra the appellant herein should be appointed as Reader in Psychology in the University
That order has been quashed by the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No 2777 of 1978 at the instance of Dr Harinder Kaur Paintal respondent 1
This appeal is from that judgment of the High Court
90 The background of the case in the barest outline may be stated as under
The Lucknow University invited applications for appoint ment of Reader in Psychology from candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications
In response to the advertise ment several candidates filed their applications
The appellant and respondents I to 5 were some of them who offered themselves as candidates
The Committee which was constituted for selection of candidates called them for interview along with some others
After considering their qualifications experience and relative performance in the interview the Selection Committee graded them as follows All the candidates who appeared for the interview possess a Ph D degree
Neelima Misra does not possess a Ph D degree
Her thesis is nearing completion
Her thesis work alongwith her publication were scrutinised and it was found that she satisfies the condition of published work of a high standard in the subject provided as an alternative to Ph D degree
All the candidates have a consistently good academic record and more than 54 marks in the MA Examina tions except Dr CB Dwivedi who has a 3rd Division in the High School Dr Ratan Singh who has 3rd Division in High School and BA 2
All the candidates possess the requisite teaching experi ence of post graduate classes
And the basis of the research work publications experi ence and performance at the interview the Committee graded the candidates as follows 1
Ms Neelima Misra 2
Dr Km Mukta Rani Rastogi 3
Dr Smt Harinder Kaur Paintal 4
Dr SN Rai The rest of the candidates were found unsuitable
The view of the above Committee recommended that Km Neelima Misra be appointed to the post of Reader in Psychology 91 Km
Neelinia Misra was found to have to her credit a published work of high standard in the subject of Psychology though she had no Ph D degree
Besides she was considered to be more suitable on the basis of research work publica tion experience and performance at the interview
The Selection Committee therefore recommended her for appoint ment to the post of Reader in Psychology
That recommendation came before the Executive Council
The Executive Council by a split majority disagreed with the recommendation and preferred the appointment of respond ent 5 Dr Km MR Rastogi
It has expressed the view that the appellant did not possess the essential qualifica tions prescribed for the post of Reader and therefore not suitable for appointment
The opinion expressed by the Executive Council is as under perusal of the bio data of Km
Neelima Misra shows that she does not possess PhD degree nor has she submitted her thesis so far
Yet it is strange to say that her pub lished work is of a high standard
Thus she does not fulfil requirement of essential qualifications and not suitable for the post
The bio data of Dr Km MR Rastogi shows that she possesses 11 years teaching experience of post graduate classes
She has a consistently good academic record and should be appointed Reader in Psychology as she has been graded No 2 by the Selection Committee
Dr Smt Harmder Kaur Paintal is a Lecturer since November 1972 and has also a consistently good academic record and is suitable for the post
As a consequence there is no question of relaxa tion of essential qualification as candidate of requisite merit are available
 When there is thus disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee the matter must be referred to the Chancellor for his decision
That is the mandatory requirement of Section 318a of the Act
Accordingly the Executive Council referred the matter to the Chancellor
The Chancellor however by order dated August 16 1978 did not approve of the Executive Council s opinion to appoint Dr Km MR Rastogi
The Chancellor rejected the opinion of the Executive Council and accepted the recommendation of the 92 Selection Committee and directed that the appellant should be appointed as Reader
The Chancellor observed The Selection Committee has unanimously recommended that Km
Neelima Misra be appointed to the post of Reader in Psychology
Instead of accepting this recommendation the Executive Council held by a majority of 65 votes that Kumari Neelima Misra does not fulfil the requirement of essential qualifications and is not suitable for the post
It was of opinion that Dr Km MR Rastogi who has been graded No 2 by the Selection Committee should be appointed and that Dr Smt HK Paintal is also suitable for the post
Neelima Misra does not possess a Doctorate in the subject of study but the Selection Committee has re corded that her thesis alongwith her publications were scrutinised and it was found that she satisfies the condi tion of published work of a high standard on the subject which is an alternative to the Doctorate degree as provided in Statute 1101 read with Statute 1102 of the First Stat utes of Lucknow University
Thus Km
Neelima Misra possess the essential prescribed minimum qualification
She has also been adjudged to be the most suitable candidate on the basis of research work publications and experience and perform ance at interview among all the candidates by the Selec tion Committee which was in a better position to Judge the merits of the suitability of the appointment
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I approve the report of the Selection Committee and direct that the appointment order be issued accordingly
Sd GD Tapase Chancellor As per the decision of the Chancellor the appellant was appointed as Reader in Psychology
Dr Smt Harmder Kaur Paintal respondent 1 moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Chancellor s order
The Writ Petition was filed on 17 August 1978 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and it was admitted on 93 30 March 1979
Ten years later ie on 3 May 1989 the writ petition was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court
On 22 May 1989 the judgment was delivered by allowing the writ petition and quashing the Chancellor s order with d direction to reconsider the matter
It seems that learned Judges had little discretion in the matter in view of an earlier decision of the High Court on the nature and scope of the Chancellor s power under Section 318a of the Act
In LN Mathur vs The chancellor Lucknow Uni versity Lucknow  Ors
  the Full Bench of the High Court by majority inter alia has held that the Chancellor must state explicitly the reasons for his deci sion
The Chancellor in order to arrive at a decision has to make a judicial approach to the question and he is enjoined by the Act to act quasi judicially
To reach that conclu sion the Full Bench has relied upon the observations in the Division Bench judgment in Dr UN Roy vs His Excellency Sr
GD Tapase The Ex Governor State of Uttar Pradesh Chancellor Allahabad University 1981 UPLBEC 309 Following those authorities the learned Judges in the present case have set aside the Chancellor s order making some more observations When difference of opinion between the Selection Committee and Executive Council is referred to the Chancellor his position is that of an Arbitrator and there is a sort of lis  before him and in case the Chancellor has to agree with the Selection Committee with which the Executive Coun cil has differed assigning particular reason the Chancellor has to assign reasons as to why he has agreed with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee
The dispute having been raised was to be decided atleast like a dis pute At this point we may interrupt the narration and ana lyse Section 1 of the Act which provides procedure for selection of University eachers
Omitting unnecessary clauses the Section reads 311 Subject to the provisions of the Act the teachers of the University and the teachers of an affiliated or associ ated college other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the affiliated or associated college as the case may be on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter provided
XXXX XXXXX XXXXX 94 4aThe Selection Committee for the appointment of a teacher of the University other than the Director of an Institute and the Principal of a constituent college shall consist of i the Vice Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof iithe head of the Department concerned XXX XXX XXX iii in the case of a Professor or Reader three experts and in any other case two experts be nominated by the Chancellor XXX XXX XXX 6 No recommendation made by a Selection Committee referred to in sub section 4 shall be considered to be valid unless one of the experts had agreed to such selection
XXX XXX XXX 7 A It shall be open to the Selection Committee to recom mend one or more but not more than three names for each post
8a In the case of appointment of a teacher of the Uni versity if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee the Execu tive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement and his decision shall be final
Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of meeting of such Committee then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor and his decision shall be final
 Three authorities are involved in the selection of University teachers i Selection Committee ii Executive Council and iii Chancellor 95 The Selection Committee for appointment of University teachers is a recommendatory body the composition of which has been prescribed under section 314a
It is a high power Committee of which the Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairman
The Head of the department concerned shall be a member
There shall also be expert members in the particular subject
The experts shall be drawn from outside the Univer sity and the Chancellor must nominate them
In the case of appointment of Professor or Reader there shall be three experts and in any other case two experts in the Selection Committee
In the case of selection of teachers of the University the recommendation of the Selection Committee shall not be valid unless atleast one of the experts agrees to such selection
The Selection Committee has the liberty to recommend one or more candidates but not more than three names for each post
The Executive Council is the principal executive body of the University whose powers and duties are provided under Section 21 of the Act
Subject to the provisions of the Act the Executive Council has power to appoint officers teach ers and other employees of the University
The appointment shall be made on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee which means in the order of merit of candidates arranged by the Selection Committee
The Selec tion Committee has expert members and it has thus the exper tise to judge the relative suitability of competing candi dates
The Executive Council has no such experts on the subject for selection
Therefore the Executive Council shall make appointments as per the position or ranking obtained in the recommendation unless any other rule re quires otherwise
Section 318a seems to suggest that if the Executive Council wants to agree with the recommendation and appoint candidates in the order of merits no reasons are to be given
But if it wants to disagree with the recom mendations made by the Selection Committee it must give reasons for disagreement
It has however no power to over ride the recommendation and appoint a candidates of its own choice
It may disagree but should give reasons for disa greement and refer the matter under section 318a to the Chancellor
Then the decision of the Chancellor shall be binding on the Executive Council
The nature of the Chancellor s power located under Section 318a is now to be considered
The High Court has held that the Chancellor s power is quasi judicial
There is a lis  before the Chancellor for determination and he has to decide the dispute as an arbitrator
96 The suggested analogy with the position of an arbitrator was not even supported by counsel for the respondents
The essence of the attack of Mr Parasaran learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no legal or equitable fight of parties or any dispute relating thereto for determination by the Chancellor and therefore there is no duty to act judicially
The Chancellor has only to consider the recom mendation of the Selection Committee in the light of disa greement if any expressed by the Executive Council and direct appointment of a candidate in the select list
The order of the Chancellor and his function it was argued are purely administrative in nature
Mr KP Rao for re spondent 3 was indeed very fair in his submission
He did not say that there is a lis  before the Chancellor for determination
He urged that the Chancellor is required to exercise his powers properly and not improperly even though there is no lis  before him for adjudication
The argument of Mr Agarwal for the respondent No 5 however ranged a good deal under than his counter part appears to have done in the High Court
The power of the Chancellor he contend ed is quasijudicial and he must determine the issue that is referred to him with reasons in support of his conclusion
The question raised is of considerable importance and it has general application in Universities governed by similar pattern of statutory provisions
Reference may be made to some of such enactments
Section 274 of the provides that if the Executive Council is unable to accept any recommendation made by Selection Committee it may remit the same for reconsidera tion and if the difference is not resolved it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for orders
Similar are the provisions under the Calcutta University Act 1979
Section 322 therein provides that if the Syndi cate does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee it shall refer back the matter for reconsideration and if the Syndicate does not accept the reconsidered views the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose deci sion shall be final
Section 572e of the Bombay Univer sity Act 1974 is almost parallel and it states that if the Executive Council does not choose to appoint from amongst the persons recommended by the Selection Committee it shall for reasons recorded refer to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final
The by Section 275 also provides that if the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders
Section 492 of the MP Vishwavidhayalaya Adhiniyam 1973 likewise requires where the Executive Council pro 97 poses to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Select Committee it shall record its reasons and submit its proposal for sanc tion of the Kuladhipati
The pattern in the Kerala University Act 1974 is slightly different
The First Statute under that Act empow ers the Syndicate to make appointments contrary to recommen dation of the Committee but With the sanction of the Chan cellor
The First Statute under the Delhi University Act 1922 by clause 6 provides that the Executive Council shall appoint from time to time Professors and Readers etc
on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose
Under the Act and Statute with which we are concerned the Executive Council has no power to ask the Selection Committee to reconsider the recommendation
It must for reasons recorded refer the matter under Section 318a to the Chancellor for decision
The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in LN Mathur case supra had analysed the concept of quasi judicial function with reference to the power of the Chan cellor under Section 318a and expressed the view that the reference to the Chancellor showed the existence of a disagreement between two University Authorities with respect to the claims of competing candidates
The Chancellor has to decide the issue by examining the reasons given by the Executive Council and the records of the candidate
The decision of the Chancellor is final and not subject to any appealrevision and his power is quasi judicial
The fact that the Chancellor is not required to follow any set proce dure or sit in public or take evidence does not make his function administrative
Such are the reasonings for the conclusion of the High Court to hold that the Chancellor must act as a quasi judicial authority
We find it difficult to accept the reasoning underlying the aforesaid view
Before we consider the correctness of the proposition laid down by the High Court we must at the expense of some space analyse the distinctions between quasi judicial and administrative functions
An administra tive function is called quasi judicial when there is an obligation to adopt the judicial approach and to comply with the basic requirements of justice
Where there is no such obligation
the decision is called purely administrative  and there is no third category
This is what was meant by Lord Reid in Ridge vs Baldwin   75 76 98 In cases of the kind with which I have been dealing the Board of Works   was dealing with a single isolated case
It was not deciding like a judge in a law suit what were the rights of the persons before it
But it was decid ing how he should be treated something analogous to a judge s duty in imposing a penalty   So it was easy to say that such a body is performing a quasi judicial task in considering and deciding such a matter and to require it to observe the essentials of all proceedings of a judicial character the principles of natu ral justice
Sometimes the functions of a minister or de partment may also be of that character and then the rules of natural justice can apply in much the same way   Subba Rao J as he then was speaking for this Court in G Nageshwara Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation 19 put it on a different empha sis at 353 The concept of a quasi judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial it describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its execu tive power   Prof Wade says A judicial decision is made according to law
An administrative decision is made according to administrative policy
A quasi judicial function is an administrative function which the law requires to be exer cised in some respects as if it were judicial
A quasi judicial decision is therefore an administrative decision which is subject to some measure of judicial procedure such as the principles of natural justice Administrative Law by HWR Wade 6th Ed
p 46 47
An administrative order which involves civil conse quences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in the Latin Maxim audi alteram partem
It means that the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case
A large number of authori ties are on this point and we will not travel over the field of authorities
What is now not in disputeis that the person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken
Ridge vs Baldwin supra and state of 99 Orissa vs Dr Binapani Dei  Ors  The shift now is to a broader notion of fairness of fair procedure in the administrative action
As far as the administrative officers are concerned the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly See Keshva Mills Co Ltd v Union of India  at 30 Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner  at 434 Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India and Management of Ms MS Nally Bharat Engineering Co Ltd vs The State of Bihar  Ors Civil Appeal No 1102 of 1990 decided on February 9 1990
For this concept of fairness adjudicative settings are not necessary not it is necessary to have lis inter partes
There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a lis 
There need not be resolution of lis inter partes
The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely differing circumstances
It may arise expressly or impliedly depending upon the context and considerations
All these types of non adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric of fairness in the administration
But then even such an administrative deci sion unless it affects one s personal rights or one s property rights or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would juridically be called atleast a privi lege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistently with the rules of natural justice
We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept
In the light of these considerations we revert to the central issue that is with regard to the nature of the Chancellor s power under Section 318a
It may be noted that the Chancellor is one of the three authorities in the Statutory Scheme for selecting and appointing the best among the eligible candidates in the academic field
The Chancel lor is not an appellate authority in matters of appointment
He is asked to take a decision because the Executive Coun cil who is the appointing authority has no power to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee and take a decision deviating therefrom
The Chancellor s decision is called for when the Executive Council disagree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee
What is referred to the Chancellor under Section 318a of the Act is therefore not a dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on any issue
Nor it is a dispute between two rival candidates on any controversy
What is referred to the Chancellor is the recommendation of the Selection Committee with the opinion if any recorded thereon by the Executive Council
In fact even without any opinion of the Executive Council the matter stands automat ically 100 remitted to the Chancellor if the Executive Council delays its decision on the recommendation of the Selection Commit tee
The proviso to Section 318a provides for this contingency
It reads Section 318a xxxxx xxxxx Proviso Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such Committee then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor and his decision shall be final
 The matter thus goes to the Chancellor for decision since the Executive Council could not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
The Chancellor in the circumstances has to examine whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee should be accepted or not
If any opinion by way of disagreement has been recorded by the Executive Council on that recommendation the Chancellor has also to consider it
He must take a decision as to who should be appointed
It is indeed a decision with regard to appointment of a particular person or persons in the light of the recommendation and opinion if any of the two statu tory authorities
Such a decision appears to be of an admin istrative character much the same way as the decision of the Executive Council with regard to appointment
In matters relating to public employment whether by promotion or direct recruitment only requirement to be complied with is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
There shall be equality of opportunity and no discrimination only on ground of religion race caste sex dissent place of birth or residence or any of them
The eligible candidate has a right to have his case considered in accordance with law
In the instant case that require ment has been complied with by the Selection Committee
There is no further right with the candidates to make repre sentation to the Executive Council and much less to the Chancellor
Reference however was made to the observation of this Court in Dr G Sarana vs University of Lucknow and Ors  at 592
While dismissing the writ petition challenging the recommendation made by the Selec tion Committee of the Lucknow University for appointment of a candidate as Professor it was observed that the ag grieved candidate has remedy by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for re 101 ference under Section 68 of the Act to the Chancellor
We have carefully perused the decision and that observation
We find that it is of little assistance to the present case
We are concerned with the scope of Section 318a of the Act which was not considered in that case
Apart from that Section 31 confers no such right to make representation to the Executive Council or to the Chancellor against the recommendation of the Selection Committee
There is no provision in the Section for hearing any candidate or the Executive Council
There is also no provision for receiving evidence
The material in respect of every candidate has already been collected and collated by the Selection Commit tee
Every material is on the record and the Chancellor has no power to take further evidence
The Chancellor is autho rised to take a decision and he must take it on the avail able records since the Executive Council has not taken a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
The decision of the Chancellor in the exercise of this Statutory function does not in our opinion expressly or impliedly require the application of the principles of natural justice
See also the observations of KN Singh J in RS Dass vs Union of India at 633
It has been argued that the order of the Chancellor becomes final and binding which is one of the features of judicial power
It is true that the conclusiveness of the decision without the need for confirmation or adoption by any other authority is generally regarded as one of the features of judicial power
But it must be added that the order made by a statutory authority even it is given finali ty does not thereby acquire judicial quality if no other characteristic of judicial power is present
Power to make orders that are binding and conclusive is not by itself a decisive factor to hold that the power is judicial
Prof De Smith makes a similar point in his book Judicial Review of Administrative Action  4th Edition p 82
Taking all these factors into consideration we would sum up our opinion m this way
The power of the Chancellor under Section 318a is purely of administrative character and is not in the nature of judicial or quasi judicial power
No judicial or quasi judicial duty is imposed on the Chancellor and any reference to judicial duty seems to be irrelevant in the exercise of his function
The function of the Chancellor is to consider and direct appointment of a candidate on the basis of the relative performance assessed by the Expert Selection Committee and in the light of the opinion if any expressed by the Executive Council
His decision nonetheless is a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
Such a power cannot be considered as a quasi judicial power
And we see nothing in that to justify our thinking 102 that it must conform to the principles of natural justice
The contention urged to the contrary is therefore unac ceptable to us
We also do not agree with the contrary view taken by the High Court in the Full Bench decision in LN Mathur case supra
The Chancellor however has to not properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred
He must take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes
He must not be guided by extraneous or irrele vant consideration
He must not act illegally irrationally or arbitrarily
Any such illegal irrational or arbitrary action or decision whether in the nature of a legislative administrative or quasi judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitu tion
As stated in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu  Anr  equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch
The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 must guide every state action whether it be legislative executive or quasijudicial
See Mrs Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India  Anr 1978 1 SCC 248 at 283 84 Ajay Hasia  Ors
vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  Ors  at 740 41 and Som Raj  Ors
vs State of Haryana JT 1990 1SC 286 at 290
The order of the Chancellor impugned in this case indi cates very clearly that he has considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the opinion expressed by the Executive Council
He has stated and in our opinion very rightly that the appellant possesses the prescribed qualifi cation for appointment as Reader
The decision of the Chan cellor gets support from the Statute 1101 of the First Statute
The Statute 1101 is in these terms 1101
1 In the case of the Faculties of Arts Commerce and Science the following shall be the minimum qualifica tions for the post of Lecturer in the University namely a a Doctorate in the subject of study concerned or a published work of a high standard in that subject and b Consistently good academic record that is to say the overall record of all assessment throughout the academic career of a candidate with first class of high second class that is to say with an aggregate of more than 54 marks Master s Degree in the subject concerned or equivalent Degree of a foreign University in such subject  103 2 Where the selection committee is of the opinion that the research work of a candidate as evidenced either by his thesis or by his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications specified in subclause of clause 1
 The minimum qualification prescribed for the post is a Doctorate in the subject of study concerned or a published work of high standard in the subject
The appellant then was found to have an alternate qualification though not a Doc torate in the subject
The Selection Committee has accepted the alternate qualification as sufficient and did not relax the essential qualification prescribed for the post
The Executive Council appears to have committed an error in stating that the appellant has lacked the essential qualifi cation and the Selection Committee has relaxed the essential qualification
The Chancellor was therefore justified in rejecting the opinion of the Executive Council
It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the Court generally does not interfere
In the University of Mysore  Ant
CD Govind Rao  this Court observed that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion ex pressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged 2against the experts
When appointments based on recommenda tions of experts nominated by the Universities the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had con travened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance
The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted
See also the decisions in Dr JP Kulshreshtha  Ors
vs Chancellor Allahabad University Raj Bhavan  Ors  at 912 and Dalpat Abasahed Solunke vs
BS Mahajan at 309 310
In the result tile appeals are allowed the judgment of the High Court is set aside
We also set aside the conse quential order dated June 16 1989 made by the Registrar of the University reverting the appellant to her substantive post of Lecturer in Psychology
Needless to state that her original appointment as Reader pursuant to the decision of the Chancellor shall remain undisturbed with all the conse quential benefits
In the circumstances of the case however we make no order as to costs
TNA Appeals allowed


Summary:
The Deputy Commissioner of Amraoti evolved a scheme for the distribution of standard cloth
The assessees agreed to finance the scheme without charging any interest and were appointed financiers and distributors
The orders for the cloth were placed by the Government with the mills and the cloth was delivered to the assessees upon their paying the value of the cloth together with 6 14 of the ex mill price
The Deputy Commissioner paid 4 12 of the ex mill price to the asses sees for contingent expenses of working the scheme
The assessees distributed the cloth at prices fixed by the Deputy Commissioner through the Tehsildars and the Deputy Commissioner was responsible to the assessees for the sale proceeds receivable from the Tehsildars
Out of the sale proceeds the Deputy Commissioner paid to the assessees whatever they had advanced on the cloth
The profits from the scheme were agreed to be utilised for such charitable purposes as might be decided by the Deputy Commissioner
The assessees contended that the income was not their income and that it was exempt from taxation under section 43 i a of the Income tax Act
Held that the profits were income which accrued to the assessees
The assessees worked the scheme and such working produced the profits
The fact of the control of the Deputy Commissioner could not prevent the working of the scheme by the assessees from being a business carried on by them
The provisions in the agreement that the Deputy Commissioner guaranteed the payment by the Tehsildars of the price due from them and that the profits would be devoted to charity decided by the Deputy Commissioner and the claim for exemption under section 43 i a all indicated that the assessees were the owners of the business
Held further that the profits were not exempt from taxation under section 43 i a as the business was not carried on behalf of any religious or charitable institution