Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 September, 1989
Although, we find ourselves in respectful disagreement to what has been expressed by the ld.Single Judge and in our considered view the provision of which we have made a reference in detail and proviso to sub-rule (3) of R.28 of the Rules and corresponding to all the service Rules are self explicit and it mandates the Commission not to recommend such of the candidates who have failed to obtain minimum of 40% in each of the paper of Phase-I & minimum of 36% in each of the paper of Phase-II of the competitive examination held for Lower Division Clerk. It is the duty of the court to give effect to the words regardless of any other consideration and it would not be justified in ignoring any part of the language of the statute and as regards the syllabus & scheme of competitive examination are concerned, it has to be read in tandem with the statute and explanation lays down procedure to be followed for entering from Phase-I to Phase-II and the marks obtained to be taken care of for preparation of the final merit list and the scheme of Rules which is self explicit leaves no manner of doubt and with ordinary & natural meaning of the provisions of the statute, we do not find any conflict with the substantive scheme of Rules of which we have made reference and the Apex Court in the judgment in M/s.Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 2227 has examined that if at all there is some ambiguity between body of the statute and the Schedule appended thereto, how that has to be given effect to and observed that if there is any conflict between body of the statute and the Schedule appended thereto, it is the former that will prevail over the later. The relevant observation made by the Apex Court, is reproduced ad infra:-
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1