Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 February, 2008
Author: R.K. Gupta
Bench: R.K. Gupta
ORDER R.K. Gupta, J.
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a relief to quash the notice dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure P/3) and also in the alternative to quash the process of selection held in pursuance to the said notice (Annexure P/3). The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to hold the examination in Hindi by issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
2. The Annexure P/3 is a notice issued by the Personnel Department of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. whereby an intimation was given to all concerned that a written test in respect of officers coming under the zone of consideration for promotion from Scale I to II, Scale II to III, Scale III to IV and IV to V is proposed to be held on 27th May, 2007 at the four metro centres viz., Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. According to the respondents, this notice as well as the brochure states that examination shall be conducted in English and for this reason the petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present petition.
3. The petitioner is a Union registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and is federated to the National Federation for General Insurance Officers' Association, Mumbai. According to the averments made in the petition, the area of operation of the petitioner's Union is within the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the State of Chhattisgarh.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are under a Constitutional obligation to hold the examination in Hindi also in view of Article 343 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the petitioner that in view of the Official Languages Act, 1963, 'Hindi' has been declared as the official language, therefore, according to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963 the respondent Company was bound to conduct the examination in Hindi, which has not been conducted.
5. The respondents in their return have contended that the promotion policy of the officers has been approved in consultation with the four General Insurance Companies in India namely the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited, The New India Assurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. All these four companies are engaged in transacting the business of nonlife insurance in India; therefore, all the four companies formulated the policy of holding the written examination in English. It is also submitted that the National Insurance Academy, Pune has undertaken the task of holding the examination. It is also submitted in the return that the English is a necessary language for the business and the officers those who are to be promoted, they should have the knowledge of English, therefore, the necessary decision has been taken to hold the examination in English.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid, the grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents in holding the examination in English are considered.
7. The first question which the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted with regard to applicability of Article 343 of the Constitution of India, is considered. The Article 343 only provides for the official language of the Union and according to the same the official language of the Union shall be 'Hindi' in Devnagari Script. There is nothing in the Article 343 that the same shall also be applicable to other government companies or the public sector undertakings. Since the Article 343 specifically uses the word 'Union' and no other public sector or State has been included, therefore, the submission at the first instance made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the official language being Hindi for the Union shall have any application to the public sector undertakings or the Corporation. On the basis of the same, I am of the view that the first submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. It is also not a case of the petitioner that any Commission or Committee of Parliament on official language was constituted by the President in exercise of powers under Article 344 of the Constitution of India and after receipt of the report as such any direction has been issued by the President of India under Article 344 for accepting the said report or part thereof. Article 345 also has no application because it relates to official language or languages of a State. Similarly, Article 346 also has no application because the official language for communication between one State and Anr. or between a State and the Union is prescribed as Hindi.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Central Government has already promulgated the Official Languages Act, 1963 (Act No. 19 of 1963) (for short "the Act") and accordingly 'Hindi' in Devnagari Script is the official language from the appointed day i.e. 26th day of January, 1965.
9. The submission as such is also considered. In this reference it will be profitable to refer to Section 3 of the Act, which provides that the English language may, as from the appointed day, shall continue to be used in addition to Hindi. By virtue of Sub-section 3(i) of Section 3 of the Act, there is no prohibition in the use of the English language as an official language. It is also to be seen that Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act provides that for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before that day; and for the transaction of business in Parliament, the Hindi language shall be used as an official language. The proviso attached to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 mentions the words 'Union' as well as the 'State' and on the basis of the same, it is clear that Subsection (1) of Section 3 has no application with reference to the Public Sector Corporation or other bodies other than the Union and the State. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) where Hindi or the English Language is used for purposes of communication.
10. If the whole of the purpose of the Act is seen then it is clear that it relates to the use of the official languages and the other provisions of the Act refer to the "official communication" and for publication of translation in Hindi after the appointed day of any Central Act or of any Ordinance promulgated by the President, or any order, rule or by-law issued under the Constitution or under any central Act, shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in Hindi.
11. The Section 6 further makes a provision that where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than Hindi for use in Acts passed by the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State, a translation of the same in Hindi, in addition to a translation thereof in the English language as required by Clause (3) of Article 343 of the Constitution by making a Law, may be published on or after the appointed day under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of the State and in such a case, the translation in Hindi or any such Act or Ordinance shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the Hindi language. The Section 7 provides for optional use of Hindi or other official language in judgments etc. of High Courts, which has no relevance in the present case.
12. By reading of the various Sections of the Act it is apparent that the use of Hindi language is with respect to the "official communication" and also with reference to resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other reports or press communiqués issued or made by the Central Government or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or Company. On the basis of the same, Sub-section (3) of Section 3 starts with the non obstante clause, which reads that 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) both Hindi and the English languages shall be used for aforesaid purposes.
13. The matter as such has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3771/2005 R.P. Gautam v. Union Bank of India; copy whereof has been placed on record by the respondents as a document Annexure R/2 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that since the English language is not prohibited to be used as an official language, therefore, there is no question of prohibiting the use of the English language as the official language.
14. The question in the present case is that the examination is to be conducted by an independent agency as submitted by the respondents i.e. the Institute known as National Insurance Academy, Pune, which is a Corporation or Company owned or controlled by the Central Government for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Act. In this reference it is pertinent to note that the petitioner in its petition has not chosen to implead the National Insurance Academy, Pune as a party which is the agency who has conducted the examination. The examination was conducted for all the insurance companies, as it was the common examination for promotion with respect to all the companies. Since the National Insurance Academy, Pune has not been impleaded as respondent in the present case, therefore, the character of the National Insurance Academy, Pune is not known in the petition. The petitioner has also not pleaded its character as well as the status in the said examination. In the absence of any allegation as such it is difficult to hold that the National Insurance Academy, Pune who has conducted the examination is either a Corporation or a Company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company. The respondents in the return have stated that it is an independent agency and is not owned and controlled by the respondents.
15. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also vehementally relied upon the circulars issued by the Central Government, which are filed on record as Annexures P/4, P/5, P-7 and P-8, whereby the annual programme with respect to the use of Hindi to promote as language for the official use has been circulated.
16. As I have already discussed hereinabove, the agency which has conducted the examination has not at all been impleaded in the present petition as the respondent, therefore, its character is not known. It is not a case that the examination was conducted by the respondents, which is a public sector undertaking and therefore the respondents-Insurance Company being a public sector undertaking was bound to hold the examination in terms of the Official Languages Act, 1963. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also to be seen that the question papers and conducting of examinations cannot be said to be an "official communication" between departments to department and is also not the resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other reports or press communiqués issued or made by the Central Government or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company. It is also not a contract and agreement executed and licences, permits, notices and forms of tender issued, by or on behalf of the Central Government or and Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government. Under the circumstances, the holding of examination, publication of question papers and obtaining its answers in the English language even otherwise cannot be said to be prohibited under the Act particularly when Sub-section (4) of Section 3 itself intends that without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) the Central Government may, by rules made under Section 8, provide for the language/languages to be used for the official purpose of the Union, including the working of any Ministry, Department, Section or Office and in making such rules, due consideration shall be given to the quick and efficient disposal of the official business and the interests of the general public and in particular, the rules so made shall ensure that persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and having proficiency either in Hindi or in the English language may function effectively and that they are not placed at a disadvantage on the ground that they do not have proficiency in both the languages.
17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to show that any Rule has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers vested with them under Rule 8 to prescribe Hindi to be a language for holding the examination. Since no Rules have been shown to this Court, therefore, even otherwise it is difficult to conceive that merely because the examination has been conducted in the English language that by itself will debar certain class of persons who do have any proficiency in Hindi and which is provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963. In the absence of any Rule as such, the arguments of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
18. Under Section 17-A of the General Insurance (Business) Nationalisation Act, 1972 power has been vested with the Central Government to provide for the service condition. In exercise of the powers vested with the Central Government under Section 17-A as aforesaid, the Central Government has also not framed any rule that the examination shall be conducted in Hindi language also.
19. The respondents in their return in para-24 have stated that the Management of all the four companies have also arranged for pre-promotion training for the officers belonging to SC/ST category so that they may not be made to suffer as they do not know English properly. In para-28 of their return the respondents have averred that the business of insurance is not only highly technical but has international ramifications and unless a person possess requisite level of proficiency in English and that of insurance as a subject and practice in English, he cannot be expected to discharge his duties effectively as an officer.
20. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find that the respondents have committed any illegality in holding the examination in the English language.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any substance in the petition and the present petition accordingly stands dismissed.