Karnataka High Court
Smt A S Vimalakshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 70 (KAR), AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1201 2019 (4) AKR 497, 2019 (4) AKR 497
Bench: Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
PRESENT ®
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NOS.939-940 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. A.S. VIMALAKSHI
W/O. LATE M.S. MALLESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH MAIN ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020
2. SRI. R. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
RESIDING AT NO.737, 1ST 'F' CROSS
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 079.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI. YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
4. SMT. P. LALITHA
SENIOR ASSISTANT/RESEARCH ASSISTANT
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
. . . RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR SRI VIJAYKUMAR.Y.H., PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS-1 TO 3 &
SRI S.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT-4)
THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.27757-58/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANTS.
THESE APPEALS, HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
OVERVIEW The appellants, who are unsuccessful writ petitioners have taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 20th February, 2019 passed by the learned single Judge, by which, writ petitions filed by them in W.P.Nos. 27757- 27758/2015 (S-Res) have been rejected.
2. The issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 371 J of the Constitution of India which reads thus:
"371-J. Special provisions with respect to State of Karnataka.--(1) The President may, by order made with respect to the State of Karnataka, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for--
(a) establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region with the provision that a report on the working of the board will be placed each year before the State Legislative Assembly;
(b) equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure over the said region, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole; and
(c) equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region, in matters of public employment, education and vocational training, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. (2) An order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for--4
(a) reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for students who belong to that region by birth or by domicile; and
(b) identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government and in any body or organisation under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order."
(emphasis supplied) We have highlighted the portion which is relevant for our consideration. The Hon'ble President of India issued an Order dated 24th October, 2013 under the name and style of 'the State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013' (for short 'the said Order'). The said order dated 24th October, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble President of India reads thus:
"The State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad- Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 371J of the Constitution, 5 the President hereby makes, with respect to the State of Karnataka, the following order, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This order may be called the State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad-Karnata Region) Order, 2013.
2. It shall come into force at once.
2. Special responsibility of Governor.- (1) The Governor of Karnataka shall have the special responsibility for the establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region and for other matters referred to in clause (1) and clause (2) of article 371J of the Constitution in respect of that region.
(2) The Governor shall, for the purpose of sub- clause (1) have power to issue such order as may be necessary."
(emphasis added) In exercise of powers conferred by clause 2 of the said Order, the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka passed an order styled as 'the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (in 6 short 'the impugned Order'). In the writ petitions filed by the appellants, the challenge was to clause (b) of paragraph-13 of the impugned order. Paragraph 13 of the impugned order provided for reservation of 8% of the posts in the State Level offices or State Level Institutions or Apex Institutions set out therein for the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. Paragraph 13 of the impugned order reads thus:
13. State Level offices or Institutions or Apex Institutions.- 8% of the posts in the following State Level Offices or State Level Institutions or Apex Institutions reflecting population percentage of the Region in total population of Karnataka in all departments, body or organization and at up to levels of Group A (Junior Scale) post shall be reserved for Local persons of the region, namely:-
(a) Secretariat of the State Government
(b) Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly
(c) Secretariat of the Legislative Council
(d) Karnataka High Court: Officers and servants
appointed as per article 229 of the constitution
(e) The Karnataka Public Service Commission
(f) An office of the Head of a Department
(g) A Special Office or Establishment
(h) Any State-level office or institution
(i) All corporations/bodies outside the Region
(j) The Bangalore Development Authority/Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike / Similar 7 Institutions serving the capital city of the state, Bangalore.
(k) Any other new office, which may be created at a later date to serve purposes similar to all above-mentioned institutions or such other office or body notified by the State Government
(l) All the Karnataka State Government funded Universities in the State.
(emphasis added)
3. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the statement of objects and reasons for introduction of the Constitution (one hundred-eighteenth amendment) Bill, 2012 by which Article 371 J was proposed to be incorporated. It reads thus:
"Statement of objects and reasons The Legislative Assembly of Karnataka passed a resolution on 17-3-2010 and the Legislative Council of the State also passed a similar resolution on 18-3-2010, to make special provisions for the Hyderabad-Karnataka areas of the State of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka has also endorsed the need for special provisions for the region. The resolutions seek to accelerate development of the most backward region of the State and promote inclusive growth with a view to reducing inter-district and inter-regional disparities in the State.
2. The special provisions aim to establish an institutional mechanism for equitable allocation of funds to meet the development needs over the said region, as well as to enhance human resources and promote employment from the region by providing for 8 local cadres in service and reservation in educational and vocational training institutions by an amendment to the Constitution of India.
3. It is accordingly proposed to insert a new Article 371J in the Constitution to provide for special provisions for the erstwhile Hyderabad-Karnataka areas of the State of Karnataka which consists of the district of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal and Yadgir and additionally include the Bellary District. The article in the form of a special provision seeks to provide for:-
(a) establishment of a separate
Development Board for the aforesaid
region mentioned above;
(b) provide for equitable allocation of funds
for development over the said region
subject to the requirements of the State
as a whole;
(c) provide reservation in public
employment through the constitution of
local cadres for domiciles of the region; and
(d) provide for reservation in education and vocational training institutions for domiciles of the region.
4. The Bill to achieve the above objectives."
(emphasis added)
4. The learned single Judge, inter alia, held that the words 'for the people of Hyderabad-Karnataka region' will have to be read to mean "for the benefit of the people of the said region". 9 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through clause (1) of Article 371 and the statement of objects and reasons of the Constitution (one hundred eighteenth Amendment) Bill, 2012. He submitted that the object of Article 371J is to promote the employment for the region by providing local cadres in services. He laid emphasis on the words used in clause (2) (b) of Article 371 J which speak of identification of posts or classes of posts in the State Government and in body or organization under the control of the State Government "in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region" and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile. The learned senior counsel analysed Article 371 J and urged that there is no ambiguity in the language deployed by the Parliament. He submitted that for giving effect to the Order made under Article 371 J by the Hon'ble President of India, it is necessary to identify the posts or classes of posts in the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region which is defined by the impugned order. Thereafter, local cadres for the domiciles of the region are required to be constituted and a 10 reservation is required to be provided of a proportion of such posts in the local cadres for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile. He submitted that the finding of the learned single Judge to the effect that, unless purposive interpretation is given to Article 371 J, the provision will become unworkable, is completely erroneous. He submitted that there is no ambiguity in the language used in Article 371 J and hence, the purposive interpretation is un-called for.
6. Inviting our attention to the impugned order, he submitted that the words 'in respect of that region' used in the said order were erroneously interpreted to mean "for the people of that region'. He submitted that the said order of the Hon'ble Governor cannot be interpreted in this fashion. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India1. He submitted that clause (2) (b) of the said Article 371 J restricts the identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government which could be reserved to those in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. His 1 (1985) 1 SCC 641 11 submission, in short, is that unless the posts are situated in Hyderabad-Karnataka region, the same cannot be reserved for the persons who belong to that region. He pointed out that the argument canvassed on behalf of the State Government that clause (1) and (2) of Article 371 J are independent to each other is completely erroneous. He submitted that there was no reason to give purposive interpretation, when the language of Article 371J is clear. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Doypack Systems Private Limited Vs Union of India2. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra3 for the purposes of showing the meaning which can be assigned to the words 'such'. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian City Properties Ltd., and another Vs Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay and another4. He relied upon another decision of a Apex Court in the case of AVS Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh5. 2 (1988) 2 SCC 299 3 (2002) 1 SCC 367 4 (2005) 6 SCC 417 5 (1969) 1 SCC 839 12
7. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when there is an order made by the Hon'ble President of India under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371J, in view of sub-clause
(c) of clause (1), it is possible for the Hon'ble Governor to pass an order to provide reservation for facilitating grant of equitable opportunities for the people belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the matter of public employment. Therefore, by virtue of sub-clause (c), a percentage of reservation can be provided for the people belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region by birth or domicile in the public service and such reserved posts may be in any part of the State of Karnataka. He urged that in a given case, the Hon'ble Governor can take recourse to sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J by creating local cadres confined to Hyderabad-Karnataka region and identify the posts or classes of posts in the local cadres in the State Government or in any body or organization under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. He submitted that in a such case, reservation of a proportion of such posts for the persons who belong to the said region by birth or domicile in the local cadre can be made. 13
8. Inviting our attention to the impugned order made by Hon'ble Governor, he urged that Chapter-I of the said order deals with creation of local cadre and providing for percentage of reservation therein for the members of that region by birth or domicile, by taking recourse to sub clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371 J and paragraph-13 in Chapter-II of the impugned order takes recourse to sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of the Article 371 J. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another6. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Governor is a piece of subordinate legislation and therefore, presumption of constitutionality is attached to it. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar7. Lastly, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court, in the case of State of J and K Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and others8, in particular, what is held in paragraph 17.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, while supporting the submissions of the learned Additional 6 AIR 1962 SC 1563 7 AIR 1962 SC 955 8 AIR 2013 SC 3163 14 Advocate General, relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vishindas Gidwani Vs. Arun Dattatray Mehta and others9. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay10.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, in response, submitted that clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371 J cannot operate in different fields. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and others Vs. Manhabala Jeram Damodar and another11.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
11. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Article 371J was introduced by the Constitution of India (one hundred eighteenth amendment) Bill, 2012. The Legislative Assembly of the Karnataka as well as Legislative Council passed resolutions on 17th March, 2010 and 18th March, 2010 9 (2001) 1 SCC 78 10 AIR 2002 SC 1706 11 (2013) 15 SCC 358 15 respectively, for making a special provision for the Hyderabad- Karnataka areas of the State. Broadly speaking, the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was falling within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad State prior to reorganization of the States. The resolutions passed by the Legislature of the State of Karnataka recognize that this region was most backward region of the State of Karnataka and therefore, it was felt necessary to take steps for reducing intra district and intra regional disparity. In the statement of objects and reasons of the Constitution Amendment Bill, it is mentioned that Hyderabad-Karnataka area of the State consists of districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal and Yadgir. It is observed that in addition, it is necessary to include Bellary District in the region. For accelerating growth and development in this most backward region of the State, a provision was made authorizing the Hon'ble President of India to make an order to provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for establishment of a separate Development Board for the aforesaid region, providing for equitable allocation of funds for development of the said region subject to requirements of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities and 16 facilities for the people belonging to the said region in matters of public employment, education and vocational training, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 371 J, the said order dated 24th October, 2013 has been promulgated by the Hon'ble President of India providing that the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka shall have a special responsibility for the establishment of separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region and for other matters referred to clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The said order provided that Hon'ble Governor shall, for the purposes of sub-clause (1), have power to issue such order as may be necessary. Accordingly, the impugned order has been issued by the Hon'ble Governor.
12. Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J are the matters in respect of which the Hon'ble President is empowered to make an Order providing for special responsibilities of the Governor of Karnataka. Sub-clause (c), deals with the special responsibilities of the Hon'ble Governor for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people 17 belonging to the said region in the matter of 'public employment, educational and vocational training' subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. Sub-clause (2) of Article 371J provides that an order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for (i) reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for the students who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and (ii) identification of posts or classes of posts in the State Government or in any body or organization under the control of the State Government in the said region and providing for reservation of a proportion of such posts for the persons who belong to the said region by birth or domicile.
13. Clause (2) of Article 371J uses the word 'may provide for'. Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J is the substantive provision which enables the Hon'ble President to provide for a special responsibility to the Hon'ble Governor for providing equal opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to the said region, in the matters of public employment, education and vocational training. The provision 18 for equitable opportunities and facilities is required to be made to the people belonging to the said region subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. Thus, as per sub- clause (c), once a presidential order under clause (1) of Article 371 J is made, it enables the Governor to provide for proportional reservation in the public employment for the people born or domiciled in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Similarly, clause (c) authorizes and empowers the Hon'ble Governor to provide for reservation in educational and vocational training institutions. The words 'subject to the requirements of the State as whole' indicate that while creating public employment, the requirements of the State as a whole will have to be considered and thereafter, proportional reservation in the posts can be provided for the people of the region. Only for the benefit of the people in the said region, posts cannot be created and only if the State has a need for additional posts, the same can be created in which reservation can be provided to the people of the said region. By way of illustration, if as per the requirements of the State, certain number of posts in a particular cadre are created, Hon'ble Governor can pass an order providing for equitable 19 opportunities and facilities by providing for a proportional reservation considering the proportion of the people of Hyderabad-Karnataka region to the population of the State. On its plain meaning, clause (c) enables the Hon'ble Governor to provide for reservation for the people in Hyderabad Karnataka region with a view to give equal opportunities to the people of Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Such reservation need not remain confined to the posts in that region.
14. Similarly, in the matter of education, by virtue sub-clause
(c), the Hon'ble Governor can provide for giving equitable opportunities to the students born in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Thus, the Hon'ble Governor can direct that a provision should be made for reservation for the students of Hyderabad- Karnataka region in the educational institutions which are outside the region. The reason is that when it comes to the employment, there may not be posts available in the region looking to the backward condition of the region. Similarly, considering the backward condition of the region, there may not be educational institutions established in that region for imparting education in certain fields. Thus, sub-clause (c) of 20 clause (1) of Article 371J empowers the Hon'ble Governor, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble President, to provide equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, in the public employment available in the State, even outside the said region. If the power of Hon'ble Governor conferred by virtue of special responsibilities entrusted by the Hon'ble President, by passing an Order under clause (1) of Article 371J, was to be circumscribed by providing for equitable opportunities for public employment by imposing reservation only on the posts available in that region, the very purpose of conferring power under Article 371J will be completely defeated. The reason is that in the statement of objects and reasons itself it is stated that the said region is a backward region and therefore, there may not be enough opportunities available in that region in the public employment or in the education to the people belonging to that region.
15. It is for that reason the word 'may' is used in clause (2) of Article 371J which enables the Hon'ble Governor to make provision for identification of posts or classes of 21 posts in the State Government or organization under the control of the State in that region and provide for reservation for the people domiciled or born in that region in the said identified posts in the region. Similarly, clause (2) provides for reservation of proportionate seats in the educational institutions in that region for the students belonging to that region. Thus, apart from the power conferred under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J, clause (2) thereof enables the Hon'ble Governor to provide equitable opportunities for employment for the people belonging to the said region in the posts available in the said region. But, in view of sub-clause (c) of clause (1), it is not necessary for the Hon'ble Governor to confine the reservation in the public employment in the posts available in that particular region or to provide for reservation for the students of the said region only in the educational institutions available in that region. Clause (2) of Article 371J is only an enabling provision and it does not control sub-clause (c) in clause (1). In paragraph 13 of the impugned Order, the Hon'ble Governor has provided for equitable opportunities of employment to the persons belonging to the said region in the cadres or posts which are 22 located in any part of the State. Thus, the reservation provided in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is referable to the power of the Hon'ble Governor in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J. The said power is not controlled or affected by sub- clause (b) of clause (2).
16. Chapter-1 of the impugned order of the Hon'ble Governor provides for organization of a local cadre by identifying the posts in civil services or civil posts under the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region or the posts in Local Authority or body or organization under the control of the State in the said region. Paragraph 3(3) lays down the percentage of the posts in the region belonging to groups C and D which can be organized into local cadres. Thus, the provisions Chapter-I starting from paragraph 3 of the impugned order are referable to sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J and paragraph 13 of the impugned order in chapter II is enacted under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J.
17. The aforesaid interpretation made by us is the interpretation made by giving a plain or natural meaning to the 23 words used in Article 371J. We are of the opinion that if a plain and natural meaning is given to the words used in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371J, the provisions of Article 371J will become fully workable and therefore, there is no need to do the exercise of making a purposive interpretation. In other words, sub clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J can be said to be illustrations of the manner in which the power under the general power provided in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J can be exercised. The sub clause
(c) of clause (1) is not controlled by sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371 J. On this aspect, the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Lakhwinder Kumar and others (supra) is very relevant. In paragraph 17 of the said decision, it is held thus:
17. In our opinion, when the power is conferred in general and thereafter in respect of enumerated matters, as in the present case, the particularization in respect of specified subject is constructed as merely illustrative and does not limit the scope of general power. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric 24 Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1471, in which it has been held as follows:
".. .. Section 15(1) confers wide powers on the appropriate Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act; and Section 15(2) specifies some of the matters enumerated by clauses (a) to
(e), in respect of which rules may be framed. It is well-settled that the enumeration of the particular matters by sub-section (2) will not control or limit the width of the powers conferred on the appropriate Government by sub-section (1) of Section 15; and so, if it appears that the item added by the appropriate Government has relation to conditions of employment, its addition cannot be challenged as being invalid in law. .. .."
(emphasis added) If the argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is accepted, the wider power conferred on the Hon'ble Governor under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J will be curtailed by sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J.
18. Some argument is canvassed on the basis of the use of the words "and for other matters referred to in clause (1) and 25 clause (2) of Article 371J of the Constitution in respect of that region". In clause (2) of the Order of the Hon'ble President, the first part indicates that the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka shall have the special responsibility for the establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The words quoted by us mean that the special responsibilities are entrusted to the Hon'ble Governor in respect of other matters in the said region, as provided in sub-clauses (b) and
(c) of clause (1). The use of the aforesaid words in the order of the Hon'ble President will have no bearing on interpretation of Article 371J.
19. We have carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. The said decisions laid down well settled rule regarding interpretation of the statutes. In the case of Doypack Systems Private Limited referred supra, relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court held that the words in the statute must be given their ordinary meaning and where the 26 grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, the construction giving ordinary meaning must prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. The same judgment lays down that the object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament and the intention must be primarily gathered from the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand.
Conclusion:
20. As stated earlier, by paragraph-13 of the impugned Order, the Hon'ble Governor has provided for reservation of 8% of the posts in the State level offices or state level institutions. 8% reservation is provided, representing the population percentage of the said region in the total population of Karnataka. Thus, the reservation is provided in State level offices which are outside the said region. The exercise of power by Hon'ble Governor by providing reservation in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is fully and legally supported by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J of the Constitution.
27
21. Therefore, our conclusion is that though we do not fully concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge when he tried to invoke rule of purposive construction, for the reasons which we have recorded above, there is no illegality associated with paragraph 13 of the impugned order and it is well within the domain/scope of Article 371J. Therefore, the ultimate view taken by the learned single Judge about the legality of the contents of paragraph 13 of the impugned order is correct.
Accordingly, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed, with no order as to the costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE VR