Allahabad High Court
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi And ... vs Anil Kumar Rai on 24 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997ALL147, AIR 1997 ALLAHABAD 147, 1997 ALL. L. J. 597, 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1167, 1996 (3) ALL WC 1271
Author: D.P. Mohapatra
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra
ORDER
D.P. Mohapatra, C. J.
1. The fate of this casc turms on the interpretation of the provisions made in the Informalion Bulletin of University entrance Test 1995-96 issued by the Banaras Hindu University regarding eligibility qualifications for admission in three year M.C.A. of computer centre under the Banaras Hindu University Varanasi and para 16 regarding reservation/ weightage and interaction of such provisions with other provisions in the Information Bulletin.
2. The Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (B.H.U. for short) through its Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Coordinator Computer Centre filed this Special Appeal challenging the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4355 of 1996 in which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Anil Kumar Rai and ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed admission on the basis of his result in the entrance examination for the category of candidates coming within the purview of para 16(b) of the Information Bulletin and other consequential orders.
3. The gist of the case of the appellants, as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge and also in the memo of appeal and the affidavits filed before us, is mat the writ petitioner/respondent was not entitled to be admitted in the M.C.A. course under para 16(b) since he does not possess the minimum eligibility qualification for seeking admission in the course. In other words, the case of the appellants is that the respondent, who is a science graduate, had not secured 50 per cent marks at the graduation stage and, therefore, was not eligible to seek admission in the course. On the other hand, the case of the writ petitioner/respondent in this regard was that as per the provisions contained in the Information Bullettin the cut off mark of 50 per cent is not applicable in case of a graduate and further that the respondent having been permitted to appear in the entrance test and having come out successful in it cannot be denied admission in the course.
4. Sri V. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, reiterating the case of the appellants as noted above, strenuously urged that the provision in para 16(b) of the Bulletin prescribing the eligibility educational qualification for admission in M.C.A. course clearly provides that both types of candidates, that is, possessing graduate degree and post-graduate degree have to fulfil the condition regarding cut off mark (50 percent) in the examination in question. The further submission of Sri Upadhayay was lhat though it is not specifically stated in para 16(b) of the Bulletin that a candidate coming under the clause specified therein is also to possess eligibility qualification, such a provision has to be read into it, otherwise it will lead to absuad consequences. The learned" counsel strenuously urged that the interprelalion of the provision by the learned single Judge sets at naught the norms prescribed and the procedure to be followed in relation to the course in different faculties of the University in respect of which similar provisions are made in the Bulletin. Dr. R. G. Padia appear-
ing for the respondent equally strenuously contended that the finding of the learned single Judge that according to the provision in para 16(b) it is not necessary for a candidate to possess 50 per cent marks if he is a graduate is correct. According to Dr. Padia, for such a candidate, the only requirement as spelt out in the said paragraph of the Bulletin is success in the entrance examination, which condition has been fulfilled by the respondent. Therefore, urged Dr. Padia, there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of the learned single Judge and his decision based on such finding is unsustainable. He, however, challenged the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the cut off marks (50 per cent) prescribed in para 16(b) of the Bulletin do not apply in the case of a candidate possessing post graduate degree but also a candidate having bachelor degree. This argument was advanced as an alternative in case the first point held by the learned single Judge in favour of the respondent is decided by us against him.
5. On the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised on their behalf, the core question that arises for consideration is whether an applicant who seeks admission in supernumerary seat reserved for sons and daughters of permanent employees of the University in service during the academic session (July to June) immediately preceding the academic session for which the test is held under para 16(b) of the Bulletin is also to satisfy the eligibility qualification of 50 percent marks in graduation examination as specified under the heading "Courses of Studies and Eligibility Conditions" of the Bulletin.
6. Before proceeding to consider the points on merits, it would be convenient to quote the relevant provisions in the Information Bulletin :
"The University will conduct University Entrance Tests (UET) in June, 1995, for admission to various courses of studies for the session 1995-96. Marks obtained by the candidates in the test shall be deemed to be their performance for purposes of admission subject to their fulfilling of the eligibility requirements as indicated below :
Courses of Studies and Eligibility Conditions Computer Centre A. Bachelor's degree of minimum three years duration in any discipline after +2 (10 + 2)/or postgraduate degree with 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent grade.
Reservations/Weightage :
16.(a) Seats shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes (15 per cent) and Scheduled Tribes (7. 5 percent) for each course. Admissions against these seats will be made provided the candidates fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements and qualify in the Test. The vacant seats reserved for SC/ST candidates be not filled up by me candidates under general category.
(b) 15% supernumerary seats for sons/daughters of permanent employees of the University in serviceduring the academic session (July to June) immediately preceding (he academic session for which the Entrance Test is held provided they qualify in the test.
(c) 3 per cent seats for OH (orthopaedically handicapped) candidates only, provided they qualify in the Test. Candidates who are OH will be considered under this category on an approval from the University Medical Board. For this purpose a list of disabilities which may be kept in view is given under:
(i) Amputation or absence of limb above proximal to the toes in lower limb and proximal to (he fingers in the upper limb;
(ii) Absence or amputation of thumb or index or middle finger of hand. Absence or amputation of all the 5 toes of foot.
(iii) Cross ankylosis or fusion at major joints or body like hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, wrist, whole hand and foot;
(iv) Shortening of lower limb by 5 cm or more;
(v) Shortening of upper limb by 10 cm or more;
(vi) Severe/complete paralysis of upper limb or lower limb (by 50% or more of power and extent of the whole limb).
(d) A weightage of 10 marks will be given to the candidates passing the qualifying examination from O.H.S. (Boys and Girls), Ranvir Sanskrit Vidyalaya Central School (BHU campus) and from Banaras Hindu University, for deciding the merit provided they qualify in the test.
(e) 10 seats will be reserved forgirl candidates seeking admission to B.Com. (Hons) course in Faculty of Commerce, B.H.U., Provided they qualify in the test.
Except the above categories of seals, there is no other special category/quota of seats for admission to the courses specified above."
7. It would appear that a candidate seeking admission in supernumerary seats under the said paragraph is only to pass the entrance test, but the question, which in our view, arises in this connection is whether a candidate, who is not eligible to seek admission in the course, is at all entitled to appear in the entrance test. The answer, as we see, is to be in the negative. This position is made clear in the declaration made at the very start of the Bulletin (quoted earlier) to the effect that the marks obtained by the candidates in the test shall be deemed to be their performance for admission subject to their fulfilling the eligibility requirements as indicated in the Bulletin. This declaration was felt necessary, as stated by Sri Upadhya, since the candidates, who have not yet appeared in the graduate or post graduate examinations, for which results have not yet been declared, are also entitled to appear in the entrance test. Therefore, the University has thought it fit to make it clear to all applicants that their performance in the entrance test will be considered only if they fulfil the eligibility qualification prescribed in the Bulletin. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that his case for admission is to be considered only on the basis of performance in the entrance test ignoring the eligibility qualification cannot be accepted. It is also relevant to state there that while making provision for reservation (supernumerary scats) for sons/daughters of the staff serving in the University, no provision has been made relaxing eligibility qualification for the course. The specific reason stated by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment in support of his finding in this regard is that while in para 16(a) it is specifically provided that candidates must fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements and also qualify in the test, in sub para (b) the provision is that they are only to qualify in the test. The omission, according to the learned single Judge, is relevant and significant. In our view this reason in the scheme and in the context as set out in the Information Bulletin is not acceptable since it has been made clear, as noted, that the entitlement of any candidate, who is to appear in the entrance test, will be considered subject to his fulfilling the eligibility requirements prescribed in the Bulletin. In such circum-
stances the omission in para 16(b) does not benefit the respondent. We must state here that in some other sub paragraphs of para 16 like (c) and (e) also the fulfilling of eligibility qualification is not specifically stated.
8. Now, we will take up the question relating to eligibility qualifications for candidates applying for admission in MCA course. To be more specific, thequestion for consideration is whether an applicant having a bachelor degree is required to fulfil the cut of percentage of marks in graduation examination (50 percent). In this regard, as noted earlier the contention of Dr. R.G. Padia is that from a plain reading of para 16(b) of the Information Bulletin the position is manifest that the cut off percentage is prescribed for applicants holding post graduate degree and not those holding bachelor's degree. The main basis for the contention is that the words "with 50" marks in aggregate or equivalent grade" come after the words "postgraduate degree". According to Dr. Padia the word 'or' is disjunctive and gives an impression of the intention of the University authorities that the two classes, that is, holder of bachelors' degree and holders of postgraduate degree are distinct and separate. It is his submission that if the intention was that 50% marks was to be applicable to both the classes, then there was no difficulty in mentioning it clearly and specifically in the Information Bulletin. Dr. Padia drew our attention to eligibility conditions prescribed in B.J. course, B.Lib. & Inf. Sc. course and B.P. Ed. course. It is clearly prescribed that Bachelor's Degree (under 10 + 2 + 3 pattern with 50% marks in aggregate or Postgraduate with 50% marks in aggregate and for B.Ed./B.Ed (Spl) under the Faculty of Education where it is prescribed that Graduate under 10+2 + 3 pattern with 50% marks in aggregate/honours (including shastri, B.Mus of this University or MA/M.Sc/M.Com with 50% marks in aggregate. His submission was that as in the aforementioned cases the University authorities could easily prescribe 50% mark in respect of both the classes of applicants, that is, graduates and post graduates, this omission, according to Dr. Padia, is a conscious one and has been made with a view not to insist upon the cut off percentage of marks (50%) so far as graduates are concerned.
9. Joining issue with him on the point, Sri Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the omission of the cut off per centage in respect of holders of bachelor's degree is nothing but an accidental omission in the Information Bulletin in English; in the Information Bulletin in Hindi it is specifically stated that 50% marks have to be secured by both the classes of candidates, that is, those holding bachelors' degree and those holding postgraduate degree. Reading different provisions in the Bulletin, the inten-tion is clear that 50% marks has been insisted upon from all applicants, whether they hold bachelor's degree or postgraduate degree. This interpretation is reasonable, in the submission of Sri Upadhayay, keeping in view the intent and purpose of screening the merit of the candidates for admission to M.C.A., which is a specialised technical course. It is the further submission of Sri Upadhyay that if the interpretation of the provision in the Bulletin, given by the respondent, is accepted, then it will lead to an absurd situation that agraduate securing less than 50% marks will be eligible to apply for admission, whereas a candidate having the postgraduate degree, which is a higher educational qualification will not be eligible to apply for admission since he has failed to secure 50% marks. Sri Upadhyay urged that in orderto avoid absurd consequences and harmonise the provision, keeping in view the intent and purpose of scrutinising merits of the candidates for admission to the course, the provision in paragraph 16(b) should be interpreted as has been done by the learned single Judge to mean lhat with 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent grade qualifies both classes of candidates, that is graduates and post-graduate. Sri Upadhaya strenuously urged that the finding of the learned single Judge in this regard should not be interfered with.
10. We have perused the Information Bulletin in Hindi from which it is clear that while prescribing the eligibility conditions for M.C.A. course in computer since 50% marks in aggregate have specifically been provided in respondent of both the classes of candidates, there is, therefore, considerable force in the contention of Sri Upadhayay that omission of these words for bachelor's degree in English Bulletin was a mere accidental omission. Further, we are also impressed with the reasoning stated by Sri Upadhayay that inerpreting the provision in the manner suggested by Dr. Padia would lead to an a anomalous position that while insisting on 50% marks from a candidate having the higher educational qualification (postgraduate) no such minimum cut off percentage will be necessary for a candidate holding lesser academic qualification (Bachelor).
11. We may nolice here a few decisions cited by Dr. Padia in support of his contention. In (he case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, AIR 19SO SC 360 the Supreme Court interpreted the term 'adulterated' as defined in S. 2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and held that on the plain language of the definition section, it is apparent that the words 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption' are disjunctive of the rest of the words preceding them; it relates to a distinct and separate class altogether; the last clause 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption' is residuary provision which would apply to a case not covered by or falling squarely within the clauses preceding it. This decision, in our view, is clearly distinguishable and does not help the case of the respondent. We would like to state here that no hard and fast rule or strait jacket formula can be laid down regarding interpretation of a provision in a statute/rule/notification. The interpretation is to be made keeping in view the intent and purpose of the provision, the result which is sought to be achieved by it and to avoid frustrating the purpose or leading to absurd conclusions. In the decided case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and in that context held the view that word "or" in S. 2(1)(f) is disjunctive and the words 'otherwise unfit for human consumption' following the word 'or' should be read separately from the adjectives preceding the said word.
12. In the case of Management, Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S. S. Railway Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 513 the Apex Court ruled that it is well settled that the meaning which words ought to be understood to bear is not to be ascertained by any process akin to speculation and the primary duly of a Court is lo find the natural meaning of the words used in the context in which they occur, that context including any other phrase in the Act which may throw light on the sense in which the makers of the Act used the words in dispute. There is no dispute about the above proposition. The decision, as we read it, does not help the case of the respondent. On the other hand, it is clear from the decision that the meaning of the words is to be ascertained in the context in which they are used.
13. To the same effect is (he decision of the Supreme Court in the case of British India General Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Captain Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331 in which it has been laid down that the rules of interpretation do not permit the Court to add words to a Section unless the Section as it is, is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. We may say with respect that this principle of law is well-settled and there can be little dispute over the same, but as we have indicated above, in the context of things, in the instant case giving a plain and grammatical meaning to the words in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent would result in absurd consequences and render the provision meaningless or of doubtful meaning. Therefore, this decision also renders no assistance for the case.
14. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer Gurgaon v. M/s. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Faridabad, AIR 1981 SC 1610 in which it has been laid down that it is well settled rule of interpretation that a statute must be construed according to its plain language and neither should anything be added nor subtracted unless there arc adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature clearly so intended. In our view, this decision does not lend support to the case of the respondent, instead it tends to support the view taken by us regarding interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Information Bulletin, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
15. Dr. Padia also cited the decision in the case of Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, AIR 1966 SC 1678 in which it has been laid down that it is well known rule of construction that a court must construe a section, unless it is impossible to do so, to make it workable rather than to make it unworkable, and that the words of a statute never should in interpretation be added to or subtracted from, without almost a necessity.
In our considered view this decision too lends no support to the case of the respondent.
16. The other decisions, which were also cited by Dr. Padia are in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369, in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 and in the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 are not relevant for the purposes of determination of the questions raised in this case. Hence, we do not feel the necessity to deal with the same in detail.
17. On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the ultimate position lhat emerges is that though the learned single Judge was right in deciding the question regarding applicability of the minimum cut off percentage to a candidate holding the bachelor's degree, he erred in the finding recorded on the other question, that is, a candidate seeking admission in the supernumerary seat underpara 16(b) of the Information Bulletin was not required to satisfy the eligibility condition of educational qualification. Therefore, the net result is that the learned single Judge was not right in allowing the writ petition.
18. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12-3-1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4355 of 1996 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs.
19. Appeal allowed.