Appeal No 1299 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 16 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No 1464 of 1964
Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the appellant
R D Datar and section N Prasad for the respondent
In October 1961 he was temporarily promoted to act as statistical superintendent at Hassan
On July 21 1964 the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting applications for appointments to class 11 junior posts of a assistantdivisional statisticians and b labour welfare officers on a pay of Rs 220 per month in the pay scale of Rs 220 15 400 EB 20 500 plus the usual dearness and other allowances admissible under the Rules
On August 11 1964 the respondent tiled a writ petition in the High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation had no power to issue the notice and praying for an order quashing it
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the notice
The Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave
For the proper appreciation of the point in issue it is necessary to read sections 14 191a 191b 191c 34
451 and 452c of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 Act No 64 of 1950 141
Every Corporation shall have a Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and a Chief Accounts Officer appointed by the State Government
2 A Corporation may appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions
3The conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of the officers and servants of a Corporation shall a as respects the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer be such as may be prescribed and b as respects the other officers and servants be such as may subject to the provisions of section 34 be determined by regulations made under this Act
191
Subject to the provisions of this Act a Corporation shall have power
a to operate road transport services in the State and in any extended area b to provide for any ancillary service  c to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages establishment of provident fund living accommodation places for rest and recreation and other amenities
341
The State Government may after consultation with a Corporation established by such Government give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment conditions of service and training of its employees wages to be paid to the 769 employees reserves to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks
2 In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub section 1 except with the previous permission of the State Government
451
A Corporation may with the previous sanction of the State Government
make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation
2 In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters namely c the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer Admittedly no regulations were framed by the Corporation under section 452c prescribing the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of its officers and servants
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it was stated that the Corporation was taking necessary steps for the framing of the regulations
The High Court following its earlier decision in Karnakar Mangesha Desai vs State of Mysore and others1 held that until regulations were framed by the Corporation under section 452c with the previous sanction of the State Government the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their conditions of service
We think that the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and should be set aside
In Dundee Harbour Trustees vs D  J Nicol1 Viscount Haldane L C said The answer to the question whether a cororation created by a statute has a particular power depends exclusively on whether that power has been expressly given to it by the statute regulating it or can be implied from the language used
The question is simply one of construction of language and lot of presumption
 Bearing in mind this statement of law let is consider whether the appellant had the power to appoint officers and servants and to lay down their conditions of service in the absence of regulations framed under section 452c of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950
The appellant is an autonomous Cor poration incorporated under the Act for the purpose of operating road transport services in the State and extended areas
For the proper discharge of its functions it is necessary for the Corporation to appoint officers and servants
Section 142 expressly coners upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient per 1 2   556
670 formance of its functions
Section 191c empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service
Section 143 provides that the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of its officers and servants shall be such as may subject to the provisions of section 34 be determined by regulations made under the Act
Section 452c empowers the Corporation to frame regulations with the previous sanction of the State Government prescribing the conditions of appointment service and scales of pay of the officers and servants
If the State Government issues any directions under section 34 relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees the Corporation must obey those directions
The conjoint effect of ss143b34 and 452c is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions if any given by the State Government under s34 and the regulations if any framed under s452c
But until such regulations are framed or directions are given
the Corporation may appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit
There is necessarily a time lag between the formation of the Corporation and the framing of regulations under section 452c
During the intervening period the Corporation must carry on the administration of its affairs with the help of officers and servants
In the absence of clear words it is difficult to impute to the legislature the intention that the Corporation would have no power to appoint officers and servants and fix the conditions of service unless the regulations under s452c are framed
There is no merit in the further contention that the General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under s12c expressly authorising him to issue it
In the exercise of his general powers of management the General Manager had clearly the power to issue a notice inviting applications from intending candidates It is not alleged that he made any appointment pursuant to the notice
The respondent also contended that he had the right to be promoted to a class II junior post
But there is nothing on the record to show that he has any vested right of promotion to the post
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No 3032 of 1967 filed by the respondent asking for liberty to adduce additional evidence and to raise new contentions is dismissed
In the order dated August 17 1967 granting special leave to the appellant the Court directed that the appellant must pay the costs of the respondent in any event
In the result the appeal is allowed the order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed
The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent pursuant to the order dated August 17 1967
RKPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The General Manager of the appellant Corporation issued a notice on July 21 1964 inviting applications for appointments to two junior posts in the Corporation
The respondent who was an employee of the Corporation and claimed that he had a right to be promoted to one of the posts filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notice on the ground that the Corporation had no power to issue it
The High Court following its earlier decision in Karnakar Mangesha Desai vs State of Mysore and other 19601 Mysore Law Journal 72 held that until regulations had been framed by the Corporation under section 452 c with the previous sanction of the State Government and this has admittedly not been done the Corporation could not appoint officers and servants and lay down their conditions of service
On appeal to this Court by special leave
HELD Allowing the Appeal section 142 expressly confers upon the Corporation the incidental power to appoint such officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and Section 191c empowers it to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service
Although the conjoint effect of ss 143b 34 and 452c is that the appointment of officers and servants and their conditions of service must conform to the directions if any given by the State Government under section 34 and the regulations if any framed under section 452c
until such regulations are framed or directions are given the Corporation may appoint such officers or servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its duties on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit
770 H 771 A B D
There was no merit in the contention that the General Manager had no power to issue the notice dated July 21 1964 in the absence of any resolution by the Corporation under section 12c expressly authorising him to issue it
771 F
Dundee Harbour Trustees vs D  J Nicol   556 referred to