The Supreme Court has ruled that an employee of a registered society, even if it is considered "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be classified as a government servant. This decision clarifies the eligibility criteria for government posts and emphasizes that funding or state control over a society does not grant its employees public servant status.
Learn how Legalspace helps lawyers streamline clause generation, organise legal documents, and draft complex legal materials more efficiently.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an employee of a registered society, even if it is considered "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be classified as a government servant. This decision clarifies the eligibility criteria for government posts and emphasizes that funding or state control over a society does not grant its employees public servant status.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person employed by a society recognized as “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution cannot claim the status of a government servant solely on that basis. The case involved a candidate who had applied for the position of Junior Weaver at a government-run Weavers' Service Centre and had claimed previous employment with the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWRES).
The petitioner contended that since TTWRES is considered a "State" under Article 12, his service there should be treated as government service for eligibility purposes. However, both the Tripura High Court and the Supreme Court rejected this argument.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan clarified that just because an organization is considered a “State” under constitutional provisions does not make its employees government servants. The Court emphasized that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 apply only to those holding civil posts under the Union or State Government—not to employees of autonomous societies.
The Court further held that appointments based on false declarations or misrepresentation of service background are invalid from the beginning. In such cases, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied to protect such appointments.
Legal Takeaway
This ruling provides an important clarification for candidates applying for government jobs. Even if a society is financially supported or regulated by the government, its employees do not automatically qualify as public servants. Each case must be evaluated based on statutory definitions and rules.
To stay updated on government employment rules, visit:
Deep Karia is the Director at Legalspace, a pioneering LegalTech startup that is reshaping the Indian legal ecosystem through innovative AI-driven solutions. With a robust background in technology and business management, Deep brings a wealth of experience to his role, focusing on enhancing legal research, automating document workflows, and developing cloud-based legal services. His commitment to leveraging technology to improve legal practices empowers legal professionals to work more efficiently and effectively.
