S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
17. It is argued that pertinently the intent of the rule, in retaining the proviso
(2) of the said rule, was to avoid ambiguity in reckoning seniority, in the cases
wherein the selection for the same post i.e. “Tax Assistants’ is done through two
different sources, wherein the date of advertisements and selection processes are
different. The proviso carves out an exception to the main provision, and the
function of the proviso is to limit the main part of the provision and carve out
something which but for the proviso would have been within the operative part.
This Court in various judgments such as S. Sundaram Pillai and others Vs. V.
R. Pattabiraman and Others6; J.K. Industries Ltd. and & Ors Chief inspector of
Factories and Boilers & Ors7, held “proviso is an exception to the main part of
the section; but it is recognized that in exceptional cases a proviso may be
substantive provision itself.”