H.S. Vankani & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

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)

JUDGMENT

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

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

made the judgment of this Court in Prabhakar and Others Vs. State of

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. 1

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.

2

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 30. In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam &

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."

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Appeal therefore lacks merits, and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

.........................J ( Dalveer Bhandari)

...........................J. ( K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi Dated: 16th March, 2010