H.S.
Vankani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2010] INSC 207 (16 March
2010)
Judgment
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2439 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.17251 of 2006) H.S. Vankani and Ors.
......Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat and Ors. .....Respondent(s)
K.S.
RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The controversy in this case is with regard to the inter-se
seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range Forest Officers viz.,
1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 1980-81 batch (graduates) of the Subordinate
Forest Services of the State of Gujarat and their further promotion to the post
of Assistant Conservator of Forests.
3.
The recruitment to the posts of Rangers in the Subordinate Forest
Services is governed by the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment
Rules, 1969 (in short `1969 Rules') which was framed by the Government of
Gujarat in exercise of its powers conferred under 2 the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India. Appointment to the post of Rangers is made either
by way of promotion from the post of Forester or by direct selection. Rule 3 of
the 1969 Rules stipulated that a candidate to be eligible for appointment by
direct selection should possess a minimum educational qualification of
intermediate examination of any recognized university or its equivalent
examination comprising of subjects specified therein. Rule 7 lays down that the
candidates have to undergo a selection process consisting of a written test and
interview. Rule 10 states that the finally selected candidates have to undergo
the Rangers course which reads as follows:- "The candidate finally
selected will be required to undergo training for the Rangers Course at the
Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun or Southern Forest Rangers College,
Coimbatore for a period of two years.
4.
Rule 11 says that the State Government would bear the costs for
the training and that during the period of training the candidate shall receive
stipend, emoluments and other allowances if any, as fixed by the Government
from time to time. Rule 13 deals with appointment, which reads as follows:-
"On successful completion of the Training Course from the Ranger's
College, the candidate shall be appointed as a Ranger if he passes with higher
3 standard certificate and as a Forester if he passes with lower standard
certificate."
5.
Rule 14 deals with seniority which states that the seniority of
Rangers shall be governed by the respective ranks in the final examination,
irrespective of the date of joining the service.
6.
The Government of Gujarat, in exercise of its powers conferred
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Ranger
(Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974 (in short `1974
Rules). Rule 7 deals with the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to
the post of Rangers. Rule 8 stipulated that a candidate should possess the
minimum educational qualification of intermediate examination from a recognised
university in any of the subjects mentioned therein for admission to the
competition examination for recruitment to the post of Rangers. The examination
conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (`GPSC' in short) followed
by a viva-voce and personality test. GPSC has to publish in the Gujarat Govt.
Gazette the names of the candidates who qualify for the posts in the serial
orders based on the total marks obtained by the candidates and they are
required to undergo practical training in the forest for a period of eight
weeks. Rule 18 required the candidates to undergo training for the Rangers Course
at the Northern Forest Range 4 College, Dehradun, or Southern Forest College,
Coimbatore for a period of two years and that the Government would bear the
cost Rule 18 reads as follows:- Rule-18:- The candidate shall during the period
of practical training, receive stipend and traveling allowances as the
Government may fix from time to time. They shall also be required to undergo
training for the Rangers Course at the Northern Forest College, Dehradun or
southern Forest College, Coimbatore for a period of two years."
7.
Rule 21 states that on successful completion of the training
course from the Rangers College, the candidate shall be appointed as a Ranger
if he passes with higher standard certificate and as a Forester, if he passes
with lower standard certificate. Rule 22 deals with seniority of Rangers which
says that the seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their respective
ranks in the final examination at the Rangers College irrespective of the date
of joining the service.
8.
1974 Rules were later amended by the Government of Gujarat
invoking the powers conferred under which the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution vide Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination
(Amendment Rules) 1979, (in short `1979 Rules). Clause 1 of Rule 8 was
substituted by stating that a candidate must possess a 5 bachelor's degree in
Science or Agriculture of any university recognized by the Government of
Gujarat instead of the passing the intermediate examination so as to be
eligible for writing the competitive examination conducted by the GPSC for
recruitment to the post of Rangers. Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules was also later
amended by the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) examination Rules, 1983 (
in short `1983 Rules) on 25th November, 1983, substituting the period of two
years as one year training.
9.
The Government of India had vide its letter No.3-42/77-FRY-1 dated
29th May, 1979 announced the duration of the courses at various central Rangers
Colleges and State Forest Rangers Colleges. Northern Forest Rangers College,
Dehradun, U.P., Central Forest Rangers College, Chandrapur, Maharashtra and
Southern Forest Rangers College, Coimbatore etc. had since then, discontinued
its two years course to one year integrated course, while Forest Rangers
College, Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh and Eastern Forest Rangers College Furseong,
West Bengal Rangers College, Rajpipla, SFS. College Burnihat, Meghalaya, etc.
continued with course of two years duration.
Above
facts would indicate that different colleges followed their own 6 course
structures, curriculum and time schedule for successful completion of training
imparted in their respective colleges.
10.
Appellants herein (non-graduates) were selected to the post of
Ranger Forest Officer by the GPSC in accordance with the 1969 and 1974 Rules
and were deputed for training at the Rangers College Rajpipla, where the
training course was of two years duration and other candidates of the same
batch were sent for training to some other college where also the training
course was of two years duration. In short all the non-graduates of 1979-81
batch were deputed for training to the colleges conducting courses of two years
duration since the colleges mentioned in the rules had done away with the
courses of two years duration to one year integrated course. Appellants
completed the training course, the duration of which was two years in the month
of March, 1981 and were appointed as Rangers in the Subordinate Service in the
month of April, 1981.
11.
The Respondents herein (graduates) selected by the GPSC in the
year 1979 were sent for training at CFRC, Chandrapur, where the course duration
was of one year. After successfully completing the course in February, 1981
they were appointed to the post of Forest Rangers in the month of March, 1981.
Non graduates though selected 7 earlier had to undergo two years training and
hence could join service only after the graduates joined service, since they
had undergone the integrated course of the duration of which was one year.
12.
The controversy in this case as we have indicated is with regard
to the inter-se seniority between the graduates of (1980-81 batch) who had
successfully completed the training course earlier, and the non- graduates of
(1979-81 batch) who had also successfully completed the course later for the
post of Forest Rangers and also their further promotion to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests. Rule 13 of 1969 Rules stipulates that on
successful completion of the training course from the Rangers College, a
candidate shall be appointed as Ranger if he passes the higher standard
certificate. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of 1974 Rules state that the
seniority of Rangers shall be governed by their respective ranks in the final
examination irrespective of the dates of joining the service. Both the
non-graduates of 1979-81 batch as well as the graduates of 1980-81 batch are
governed by the above mentioned Rules with regard to their inter-se seniority.
13.
The non-graduates (1979-80 batch) who had to undergo training for
two years at Gujarat Forest Rangers' College, Rajpipla, submitted 8
representation in February 1981 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Vadodara
claiming seniority over (1980-81 batch) contending that they could join service
late not due to their fault, but due to the fact that they had to undergo two
years training course while the candidates of 1980- 81 batch were permitted to
take an integrated Training course the duration of which was one year, with the
result that they could join Service earlier than the (1979-81 batch) which,
according to them, was illegal and discriminatory and had adversely affected
their seniority in service . Representations received from the non-graduates
were forwarded by the Chief Conservator of forest, with his proposal for
favourable consideration but was however turned down by the Government
(Agriculture and Forest) Department, vide its communication to the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest dated 12.10.1982, which reads as follows:-
"With reference to your letter No.EST-3A-7409- A-2075 dated 03.08.82 of
above cited subject, it is to inform you that those who have given two years of
training, their minimum educational qualification is intermediate, while the
minimum educational qualification for those who have given one year training is
degree of B.Sc, accordingly there is basic difference between both trainees. It
is obvious that those who have less qualification required through training.
Therefore
it is not proper to change seniority because of late appointment due to long 9
training, so kindly note that your proposal is not acceptable."
14.
The office of the Chief Conservator of Forest later published a
gradation list of Range Forest Officers, as it stood on 1st January, 1983 in
which the respondents were shown as seniors to the appellants. After two years,
the first appellant herein submitted yet another representation on 22.10.1985
to the Deputy Conservator of Forest claiming seniority over the 1980-81 batch.
But a fresh gradation list of Range Forest Officers as it stood on 1st January,
1986 was published by the Department wherein also the respondents (1980-81
batch) were shown as seniors to the appellants.
15.
The Chief Conservator of Forests again rejected the first
appellant's representation vide his communication dated 05.03.1987 referring to
the earlier communication of the Government dated 12th January, 1982 stating
that undergraduates have to undergo a more intensive training compared to
graduates. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- "....With
regard to the above it is stated that by the State Government, Agriculture
Department, Gandhinagar, letter No:Kra/FST/1071/81475/VA, dated 12.10.1982 it
has been decided that the minimum educational qualification of those who were
given two years trainee is Intermediates whereas those who are given one year's
training their minimum 1 educational qualification is B.Sc degree. Thus there
is basic difference between both the trainees. Thus more intensive training is
required to be given to those whose educational qualification is less.
Therefore,
for longer training the appointment was made late. Therefore, it has not been
found proper to make any change in the seniority. This means that the Ranger
Forest Officers of 1980-81 Rangers Course were given appointment first (in
point of time) on completion of training on 28th February, 1981, whereas the
training of Range Forest Officers of 1979-81 Rangers Course was completed on
31st March, 1981 and therefore, they were given appointments as Ranger Forest
Officers subsequently, and therefore, they will not be getting seniority over
the Range Forest Officers of the year 1980-81, as decided by the Government.
Therefore, the seniority of Shri Vankani in gradation list of 1983 is at proper
place in view of the said decision."
16.
Later, a provisional gradation list of Range Forest Officers as it
stood on 01.01.1989 was published by the Department wherein also the
respondents were shown as seniors to the appellants. Above mentioned gradation
lists and the various orders issued by the Government/ Department were never
challenged by the appellants before any forum.
The first
appellant, and others however, submitted yet another representation on
17.05.1992 to the Secretary Forest and Environment department and an Under
Secretary in the Forest and Environment Department had sent a note
No.VNM/4992/A-225/61 dated 29.09.1993 to the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest stating that the following decision has been taken in consultation with
the General Administrative Department which reads as follows:- 1
"....Selection of Range Forest Officer of 1979-81 batch is as per the
provision of Recruitment Rules of 1969. While selection of candidates or
thereafter, is as per amended Recruitment Rules thereafter.
Therefore,
selection of candidates of 1979-81 batch is earlier as per Recruitment Rules of
1969. Generally, candidates selected directly by the Gujarat Public Service
Commission are arranged serially from the beginning as recommended by the
Commission. But as per provision 14 of the Rangers Recruitment Rules 1969 for
seniority of Range Forest Officer are not arranged from the date of joining,
but arranged as per Rank of Final Examination of Rangers. The provision 14 of
Rangers Recruitment Rules 1969 is to decide internal seniority of the concerned
batch only, according to that Range Forest Officer candidates of 1979-81 batch
should be placed above candidates of 1980-81 batch in the seniority list."
17.
Noticing that the above mentioned order would unsettle the settled
seniority the respondents preferred a representation dated 19.10.1993 before
the Chief Conservator of Forest reminding that similar representations were
earlier rejected and there was no justification in submitting such a note and
that too without giving them an opportunity of being heard.
18.
The respondents aggrieved by the above mentioned note preferred a
Writ Petition SCA 449 of 1994 before the Gujarat High Court and the writ petition
was heard along with three other writ petitions and a common judgment was
delivered by the learned single judge of that Court on 27.10.1989. The learned
single judge however dismissed the writ petition holding that though the
persons selected in the 1980-81 1 batch were given training for a shorter
period, on account of their higher qualification, that would not give the
officers in the subsequent and previous batches any ground for claiming higher
seniority. The respondents herein aggrieved by the above judgment had preferred
an LPA No.1634 of 1999 which was allowed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court holding that the respondents herein are entitled to seniority from
the date of their appointment after completing the Rangers Course with higher
standard certificate and that their inter-se seniority would be governed by
Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules. Further, it was also held that the contesting
respondents (appellants herein) would take their seniority from the date of
their appointment as Rangers after completing the Rangers Course with higher
standard certificate and that their inter-se seniority would also be governed
by Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules. The impugned order dated 29th September, 1993
issued by the Government was also quashed. Aggrieved by the above judgment the
appellants have come up with this appeal, with leave to appeal.
19.
We find while the SLP was pending, the Government passed a
resolution on 19.07.2007 treating the training period also for the purpose of
seniority, increment and pension which according to the respondents was to get
over, the judgment of the Division Bench. A 1 Special Civil Application No.5297
of 2009 was preferred by one Assistant Conservator of Forest before the Gujarat
High Court for implementing the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2007 so as to
get further promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forest and a Writ Petition SCA
No.7488 of 2009 was preferred by an Assistant Conservator of Forest for a writ
of certiorari to quash the above mentioned resolution.
Both the
SCAs were heard by the learned single judge of the Gujarat High Court and a
common judgment was delivered on 08.09.2009.
Learned
single judge noticed that the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2007 was
directly in conflict with 1974 Rules as amended in the year 1979. Learned
Single judge, therefore, dismissed the SCA No.5297 of 2009 and allowed the SCA
No.7488 of 2009 by quashing the Government Resolution dated 19.07.2007. State
Government it seen has accepted the above mentioned judgment and passed a Resolution
on 19th January, 2010 which reads as follows :- "Above matter was under
consideration of the Government and after careful consideration, the Government
resolves that in the Resolution of even no. dated 19.07.2007 that the duration
from the training period up to the result of the exam, which was to be
considered as continuous for the purpose of seniority who have cleared the post
-training examination within the prescribed trial are hereby, revoked. Along
with this the provisions of resolution dated 19.07.2009 contained in paragraph
no.2 are also revoked. The provisions of considering the 1 service as
continuous for the purpose of increment and pension, shall retain as they are.
The issue
with the concurrence of general administration department vide its notes dated
07.01.2010 on this Department, file of even number.
By order
and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat"
20.
Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, referred extensively to the provisions of 1969 Rules, 1974 Rules,
and also to the Notification dated 15th September, 1979, amending the 1974
Rules and also 1983 Rules, amending Rule 18 substituting one year instead of
two years for completing the Rangers course. Learned counsel submitted that the
1969 Rules, has stipulated two years' training under Rule 10 which still stands
un-amended.
Learned
counsel submitted without while amending the 1969 Rules, the State Government
was not justified in reducing the period of training to one year instead of two
years for graduates. Learned counsel submitted that the Government has
committed a grave error in revoking the Resolution dated 19th January, 2007 by
not reckoning the training period for the purpose of seniority. Learned counsel
further submitted that when the appellants and the respondents were selected in
the year 1979 and 1980 the rule stipulated two years training and hence there
was no justification in reducing the training period to one year, so far as 1
the respondents are concerned. Learned counsel submitted that the training
period ought to have been reckoned for the purpose of seniority, increment, pay
and pension and the Government was not justified in revoking the Resolution
dated 19.7.2007, by another Notification dated 15th January, 2010 while the matter
was pending before this Court.
21.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the Government was
justified in issuing the Note dated 29.9.1993 holding that the candidates of
1979-81 batch should be placed above the candidates of 1980-81 batch in the seniority
list and that the continuous officiation should reckon from the date of
commencement of the training and not from the date of appointment. In support
of his contention, learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in
G.P. Doval vs. Chief Secretary Government of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC, 329. Reference
was also Maharashtra And Others, (1976) 2 SCC 890, and G. Deendayalan vs. Union
of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 638. Learned counsel also referred to the
judgment of this Court in R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 3 SCC 641 and
the rules should not be interpreted to prohibit counting the period of training
for the purpose of seniority.
22.
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
submitted there is no illegality in the impugned judgment warranting
interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel submitted that the Government has committed a grave error in
unsettling the seniority in the year 1993 which was settled in the year 1982.
The Government had clearly indicated that two years' training was given to
those persons who were non-graduates and one year training was given to the
persons who were graduates and there was a basic difference between both the
batches of trainees in respect of their educational qualifications.
Learned
counsel submitted that Government had rightly held that extensive training was
required in the case of those who had lesser qualification and hence there was
no illegality in the fixation of seniority in the various gradation lists
published. Learned counsel submitted that it was due to the pressure exerted by
the appellants, a note was put up by the Under Secretary, Forest and
Environment Department to the Chief Conservator of Forest for unsettling the
seniority which was settled years back. Learned counsel submitted that though
the Government had tried to overcome the judgment of the Division Bench by
issuing a Resolution on 19.7.2007, it was subsequently revoked vide order dated
15.01.2010, following the judgment of the Gujarat High 1 Court in SCA No.7488
of 2009. Referring to 1969- Rules, 1974 Rules etc. learned counsel submitted
that inter se seniority between both the batches has to be reckoned from the
date of appointment and not from the date of selection or from the date of
commencement of the training.
Learned
counsel referred the Judgment of the Apex Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain vs.
Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181;
Pramod K.
Pankaj vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 3 SCC 723; Bhey Ram Sharma vs. Haryana
S.E.B.,, 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276. Reference was also made on the decision of Apex
Court in K.R. Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh (1986) 4 SCC 531. Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
learned counsel for the respondents also endorsed the view of the respondents
and also referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government in
support of their stand.
23.
We are of the view that the Government has committed a grave error
in unsettling the inter se seniority of the graduates and non- graduates which
was settled as early as in the year 1982. The State Government in its letter
dated 12.10.1982 had taken the view that two years' training was imparted to
non-graduates of 1979-81 batch and one year training was imparted only to
graduates of 1980-81 batch since candidates with lesser qualification required
through training compared 1 to the candidates with higher qualification. Due to
this basic difference in the educational qualification between the 1979-81 and
1980-81 batches, the Government took a conscious decision that it was not
proper to unsettle the settled seniority even if there was delay in the
appointment of non-graduates. Subsequent to that decision, three gradation
lists were published, recognizing the seniority of the respondents over the
appellants. Neither the Government order dated 12.10.1982 nor the Gradation
lists were challenged before any forum which in our view had attained finality.
After a period of two years yet another representation was submitted which was
rejected by the Conservator of Forests vide his communication dated 5.3.1987
referring to the earlier Government order dated 12.01.1982. Fresh gradation
list was published on 1.1.1989 where also respondent's seniority was
recognized. Representations dated 23.05.1989 and 03.05.1990 preferred by the
appellants were also not favourably considered by the Government or the Chief
Conservator of Forests. The Under Secretary of the Forest and
Environment-Department had however put up a note on 29.09.1993 evidently under
pressure from the candidates of the 1979-81 batch misinterpreting rule 14 of
the 1969 Rules, stating the candidates of 1979-81 batch should be placed above
the candidates of 1980-81 batch. Rule 14 of the Rules determines the 1 inter se
seniority of the candidates of a particular batch and does not determine the
inter-se seniority between two batches, whose educational qualification, years
of training and the date of joining, etc.
differ.
Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of 1974 Rules also further re- emphasis that
fact. The note put up by the Under Secretary on 29.09.1993 is, therefore,
contrary to Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules.
24.
1969, 1974, and 1979 Rules clearly stipulate how the seniority has
to be reckoned. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and 22 of 1974 Rules are in pari materia
which states that seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their
respective ranks in the final examination at the Rangers College irrespective
of their joining the service and on successful completion of the training
course the candidates shall be appointed as Rangers if they pass with higher
standard certificate. Both the groups are governed by these rules in the matter
of their intra seniority and the government had rightly settled the seniority
vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 05.03.1987 and the gradation lists were also
rightly published. The Government in our view have committed a grave error in
unsettling the settled seniority vide its proceedings dated 29.9.1993.
25.
Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role
to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a Government servant
depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or
merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march
in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts
the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and
commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and
sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior
in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility
among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be
lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for
resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of
time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative
wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government,
driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn,
may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times
drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption.
Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise
untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the 2
lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at
the cost of sound administration affecting public interest.
Courts are
repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but
the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at
times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by
this Court in Union of India and Another v.
S.K. Goel
and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71,
Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604. In view of the settled
law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval's case (supra),
Prabhakar and Others case, G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the
facts of the case.
26.
We will now examine whatever it is possible to strictly enforce
Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 Rules. Rule making authority wanted
the finally selected candidates to undergo training in the Northern Forest
Rangers College, Dehradun, or the Southern Forest Rangers College Coimbatore,
for a period of two years. When the rules were framed, perhaps only those
Government run colleges alone would have been conducting those courses, the
duration of which were two years and the qualification prescribed was pass in
intermediate examination. Later those colleges changed their course duration to
an 2 integrated one year course. Rule 10 of 1969 Rules, 18 of 1974 Rules were
therefore found to be unworkable. In the year 1979, Rule 8 of 1974 Rules was
amended and the minimum educational qualification was fixed as graduation.
Necessary amendments, however, were not carried out in Rule 10 of 1969 Rules or
Rule 18 of 1974 Rules pointing out in which college the candidate with
intermediate qualification had to undergo training, though seldom we find the
rule making authority specifies the names of the colleges where the candidates
have to undergo their training. Rules were therefore, found to be unworkable
and Government was in an obscure situation, and therefore Government took a
conscious decision that the candidates of 1979-81 batch with intermediate
qualification would undergo the training, the duration of which was two years
and the candidates of 1980-81 batch with graduation as qualification would
undergo the course, the duration of which was one year. Such a decision was
taken, evidently due to the reason that Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of
1974 Rules were found to be unworkable. Even now 1969 Rules, 1974 Rules refer
to NFR College, Dehradun and South FRC Coimbatore, though those colleges had
done away with two years course years back but necessary amendments are yet to
be carried out in those Rules. Before 1980-81 batch was selected the
educational qualification was amended, 2 but in Rule 18, the period of two
years was substituted as one year only vide Notification dated 25th November,
1983 and necessary amendments are yet to be carried out in Rule 10 of 1969
Rules.
27.
Strict interpretation of Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974
Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have resulted in absurd
results. When the educational qualification prescribed was pass in intermediate
examination, the legislature wanted the candidates to undergo training for two
years. But, when the higher educational qualification of graduation was
prescribed the statute was silent as to the period of training the candidates
have to undergo. Even the non- graduates were not sent for training in the
colleges mentioned in the Rules but were sent to some other colleges where the
duration of course was two years and the candidates of 1980-81 batch was sent
for training to the colleges which conducted course of one year duration.
Such a
course was adopted, since the rules were found to be unworkable. It is a well
known Rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed
so as to give them a sensible meaning.
The
legislature expects the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam
pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void).
Principle also means that if the obvious intention of the 2 statute gives rise
to obstacles in implementation, the court must do its best to find ways of
overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid absurd results. It is a well settled
principle of interpretation of statutes that a construction should not be put
on a statutory provision which would lead to manifest absurdity, futility,
palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience or anomaly.
28.
In this connection reference may be made to the judgment in R. (on
the application of Edition First Power Ltd) v. Central Valuation Officer and
another (2003)UKHL 20(2003) 4 ALL ER 209 at (116),(117), wherein Lord Millett
said:- "The court will presume that Parliament did not intend a statute to
have consequences which are objectionable or undesirable; or absurd; or
unworkable or impracticable; or merely inconvenient; or anomalous or illogical;
or futile or pointless. But the strength of these presumptions depends on the
degree to which a particular construction produces an unreasonable result. The
more unreasonable a result, the less likely it is that Parliament intended
it....."
29.
Reference may also be made in the Judgment in Andhra Bank v. B.
Satyanarayana (2004) 2 SCC, 657, wherein this Court has held:- " A machinery
provision, it is trite, must be construed in such a manner so as to make it
workable having regard to the doctrine " ut res magis valeat quam
pereat".
2
Ors.(1989) 3 SCC, 709, this Court held as follows:- "The courts strongly
lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility. The
provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and
operative, on the principle " ut res magis valent quam pereat". It
is, no doubt, true that if a statute is absolutely vague and its language
wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared
void for vagueness. This is not in judicial review by testing the law for
arbitrariness or unreasonableness under Article 14; but what a court of
construction, dealing with the language of a statute, does in order to
ascertain from, and accord to, the statute the meaning and purpose which the
legislature intended for it."
30.
Reference may also be made to the decision in Madhav Rao, Jivaji
Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85, Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal
(1997) 8 SCC 89, Paradise Printers v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1988) 1
SCC 440.
31.
The above legal principles clearly indicate that the courts have
to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable,
inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situation is unlikely to
have been envisaged by the Rule making authority. Rule making authority also
expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd
results. The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates
(1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to
a one year training is in due compliance with Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18
of 1974 Rules and 2 the seniority of the both batches has been rightly settled
vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 and the government has committed an
error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29th September,
1993.
32.
We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the High
court in quashing the order dated 29th September, 1993 and upholding the
seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81
batch.
33.
Appeal therefore lacks merits, and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
.........................J ( Dalveer Bhandari)
...........................J.
Back