Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S. Shriram vs G. Sakthi Rao on 31 July, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 3364-3367 OF 2022)
S. SHRIRAM APPELLANT
VERSUS
G. SAKTHI RAO & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Romil Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu and also for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
3. The challenge here is to the order dated 22.03.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has observed that only such candidates who completed their entire education right from schooling i.e., from first standard up to SSLC, HSC and the prescribed qualification either Degree, Diploma or Post Graduation, in Tamil medium alone are entitled to avail the benefit of 20% reservation, as per the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (Act No. 40 of 2010).
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by NITIN TALREJA
4. Date: 2023.08.03 16:38:05 IST Reason: Section 2(d) of the said Act defines “persons studied in Tamil medium” as under:
1
“persons studied in Tamil medium” means persons who have obtained the educational qualification or qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in the Rules or Regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State through Tamil medium of instruction;”
5. The Act was amended by the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (Amendment) Act, 2020 where the definition of “persons studied in Tamil medium” is substituted under Section 2(d), as below:
“(d)“person studied in Tamil medium” means a person who has studied through Tamil medium of instruction up to the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment in the rules or regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State.”
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment observed that the Amendment Act, 2020 is a clarificatory amendment providing eligibility only for those who have pursued their education in Tamil medium entirely i.e., from first standard up to the qualification prescribed for the job in question.
7. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Romil Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also considered the submissions made by Mr. P. Wilson, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. The Act No. 40 of 2010 was enacted primarily to provide employment opportunities to persons who have studied in Tamil 2 medium at all levels of education and preferential appointment is envisaged under Section 3 to the extent of 20% of all vacancies for those who have studied in Tamil medium.
9. On reasonable construction of the various provisions of the Act, it is discernible that it was intended to provide preferential appointment opportunities for those who have pursued their studies in Tamil medium entirely, i.e., from first standard up to the qualification prescribed. It was not intended to provide the benefit of preferential appointment only on the strength of pursuing the qualification curriculum in the Tamil medium.
10. When we look at the 2010 enactment in the above light, the amendment incorporated in the year 2020 has to be construed as nothing more than a clarificatory amendment of what was originally provided for in the 2010 Act. Some ambiguity remained in the interpretation of the term “persons studied in Tamil medium” as defined under Section 2(d). The amending Act of 2020 is only to ensure proper construction of Section 2(d) to achieve the objective of the Act so that only those who have pursued their education in Tamil medium, would be entitled to compete for 20% of the jobs in the State earmarked for them.
11. Unless such an interpretation is given to the relevant section in the Tamil Nadu Act No.40 of 2010 as amended in 2020, the Act would fail to fully achieve the legislative intent of the enactment.
3
12. The Amending Act by applying the rules of purposive interpretation, should be construed as an explanatory Act consistent with the objective of the Act No.40 of 2010. The impugned judgment of the High Court as can be noticed proceeds on this basis. Therefore, we see no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench in its declaration that the 20% reservation envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (Act No. 40 of 2010) is available only to those who undertook their entire education only in the Tamil medium i.e., right from the first standard up to the prescribed qualification.
13. Having upheld the 22.03.2021 judgment of the High Court, the appellant is therefore ineligible to secure the benefit of 20% reservation under the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (Act No. 40 of 2010), intended for those who have pursued their entire education only through Tamil medium.
14. With the above, the appeals stand dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J. (HRISHIKESH ROY) ..................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL) NEW DELHI;
JULY 31, 2023.
4
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3364-3367/2022
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 22-03-2021 in WP (MD) No. 8025/2020 and WMP(MD) Nos. 7454/2020, 7455/2020 and 7456/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai) S. SHRIRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS G. SAKTHI RAO & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 19197/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 43531/2022 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 31-07-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. C Aravind, Adv.
Ms. Jaya Krithika, Adv.
Mr. Sasi Kannan, Adv.
Ms. Vinay Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Subramaniam.s, Adv.
Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Pathak, Adv.
Mr. H Mannivnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.
Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv.
Ms. Sapna I. Pillai, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Ruchira Goel, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR 5 Respondent-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals stand dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6