# Das Agarwal v. District Inspector of

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 237
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 294786 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/das-agarwal-v-district-inspector-of-41022
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter II Regulation -I Appendix-ALecturer in Hindi-B.A. with Sanskrit-a
person having Sahitya Ratna Degree
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be
treated equivalent degree/eligible for
promotion?-Question referred to larger
Bench.

Held: Para 12

Let record of this writ petition be placed
before
Hon'ble
Chief
Justice
for
considering the constitution of the larger
Bench for consideration of the following
questions.

(i) Whether the judgment of learned
Single Judge in the case of Purushottam
Das Agarwal Vs. District Inspector of
Schools, Allahabad and another, reported
in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 holding that a
candidate
not
possessing
B.A.
with
Sanskrit but possessing two years course
of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is eligible for promotion as
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Lecturer, Hindi, lays down the correct
law?

(ii) Whether the qualification of two
years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan can be treated a
qualification for the candidates who do
not possess the qualification of B.A. with
sanskrit?
Case law discussed:
1999(2) UPLBEC 1609-referred to Larger
Bench, 2006(2) SCC 670, 1985(2) SLR 576

## Text

1 All] Chet Ram Gangwal V. State of U.P. and others
237
these allegations it could at least be said
that there was an intention to cheat from
the very inception as defined under
section 415 IPC although perhaps strictly
a case under section 406 IPC may not be
disclosed. If the Magistrate is so satisfied
upon
exercise
of
his
independent
discretion after considering the materials
and documents of this case, he may
refrain from framing a charge under
Section 406 IPC or by substituting it with
a charge under section 420 IPC if he
deems appropriate at the proper stage.

21. In view of what has been
indicated herein above, I find no ground
for quashing the criminal proceedings
against the applicant and the application is
accordingly rejected.

22. However, in the circumstances
of the case, it is provided that if the
applicant
appears
before
the
court
concerned and applies for bail, his prayer
for bail within a month, the application
shall be considered expeditiously in
accordance with law.

23. The observations, made herein
above, were only for the purpose of
disposal of this application and should not
be taken into account by the Magistrate
concerned
while
deciding
the
bail
application or the trial. Application
disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 294786
of 2007
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55022 of 2007

Chet Ram Gangwar

...Petitioner
Versus

State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:
Sri.Dr. H.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter II Regulation -I Appendix-ALecturer in Hindi-B.A. with Sanskrit-a
person having Sahitya Ratna Degree
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be
treated equivalent degree/eligible for
promotion?-Question referred to larger
Bench.

Held: Para 12

Let record of this writ petition be placed
before
Hon'ble
Chief
Justice
for
considering the constitution of the larger
Bench for consideration of the following
questions.

(i) Whether the judgment of learned
Single Judge in the case of Purushottam
Das Agarwal Vs. District Inspector of
Schools, Allahabad and another, reported
in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 holding that a
candidate
not
possessing
B.A.
with
Sanskrit but possessing two years course
of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is eligible for promotion as
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Lecturer, Hindi, lays down the correct
law?

(ii) Whether the qualification of two
years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan can be treated a
qualification for the candidates who do
not possess the qualification of B.A. with
sanskrit?
Case law discussed:
1999(2) UPLBEC 1609-referred to Larger
Bench, 2006(2) SCC 670, 1985(2) SLR 576

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned
Counsel for the applicant and learned
Standing
Counsel
representing
the
respondents.

2. This is an application seeking
review/ recall of the judgement and order
dated 13.11.2007 by which the writ
petition filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.

3. By the writ petition, the petitioner
had prayed for quashing the order dated
18.10.2007,
passed
by
the
Joint
Director/Of
Education
returning
the
proposal of the petitioner's promotion as
Lecturer Hindi on the ground that the
petitioner having not passed B.A. with·
Sanskrit was not eligible for promotion on
the post of Lecturer Hindi. The petitioner
is postgraduate in Hindi and has passed
two years course of Sahitya Ratna from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. After hearing
the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
writ petition was dismissed taking the
view that two years course of Sahitya
Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
cannot be said to be equivalent to B.A.
with Sanskrit.

4. The grounds taken in the review
application is that the learned counsel for
the petitioner could not cite an earlier
judgment of learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Purushottam Das
Agarwal Vs. District Inspector of
Schools,
Allahabad
and
another,
reported in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 by
which it was held that person possessing
Sahitya Ratna degree from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan and not having B.A. with
Sanskrit is eligible for promotion as
Lecturer in Hindi. It has been stated in
paragraph 15 of the affidavit that due to
inadvertent mistake the said judgment
could not be cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, a copy of which has
been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit
filed in support of the review application.
Learned Single Judge of this Court in the
said judgment has taken the view that the
person having Sahitya Ratna two years
course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and
not possessing B.A. with Sanskrit is
eligible for promotion on the post of
Lecturer in Hindi. The said judgment
supports the claim of the petitioner. The
petitioner has prima-facie made out a case
for review/recall of the order dated
13.11.2007. The order dated 13.11.2007
deserves to be and is hereby recalled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
applicant as well as learned Standing
Counsel have been heard on the issue
which has arisen for consideration in the
writ petition.

6. Chapter II Regulation 1 Appendix
A of Regulations framed under the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
provides qualifications for appointment
on the post of Lecturer Hindi to teach
classes XI and XII and for the post of
1 All] Chet Ram Gangwal V. State of U.P. and others
239
Assistant Teacher to teach classes IX and
X.
Following
are
the
qualifications
prescribed in Appendix A:

2- fgUnh v/;kid
b.VjehfM,V
1⁄4d{kk
11- 121⁄2 ds fy,
1& fgUnh esa ,e0,0 rFkk
laLd`r ds lkFk ch0,0 vFkok
'kkL=h ijh{kk jktdh; laLd`r
dkyst] okjk.klh vc lEiw.kZkuUn
fo'ofo|ky;] okjk.klh
2& izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk ojh;ku
1⁄4jktkKk
la[;k
ek@4428@15&72 1⁄4131⁄2&&76]
fnukad 16 ekpZ] 1979 ds
vuqlkj fnukad 5 vizSy] 1975
ds iwoZ gkbZ Ldwy d{kkvksa ds
v/;kiu gsrq rRle; izpfyr
fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj fu;qDr
v/;kidksa ds fy,] ;fn os
fu/kkZfjr vU; 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk;sa
j[krs gksa] baVjehfM,V d{kkvksa ds
fgUnh izoDrk in ij izksUufr gsrq
laLd`r fo"k; ls ch0,0 mRrh.kZ
gksuk vko';d ugha gksxkA
gkbZ Ldwy 1⁄4d{kk 9
101⁄2 ds fy;s
1⁄411⁄2 ch0,0 fgUnh ,oa laLd`r
fo"k; ds lkFk ,oa ,y0Vh0 ;k
ch0Vh0 ;k ch0 ,M0 ;k vU;
led{k f'k{kk vFkok f'k{k.k esa
fMxzh ;k fMIyksek
vFkok
1⁄421⁄2 lkfgR; jRu 2 o"khZ; dkslZ
fgUnh lkfgR; lEesyu] iz;kx
ftlesa laLd`r fo"k; izkphu Hkk"kk
ds :i esa fy;k x;k gks rFkk
fjQsz'kj dkslZ Vasfuax

7. A perusal of the above
qualifications
indicate
that
for
appointment of Lecturer Hindi (to teach
class
XI
&XII),
the
qualifications
prescribed is M.A. in Hindi and B.A. with
Sanskrit
or
Shastri
examination
of
Rajkiya Sanskrit College Varanasi (now
Sampurnanand
Vishwavidyalaya
Varanasi). The qualification thus is post
graduation in Hindi together with Sanskrit
in B.A. or qualification of Shastri. The
said item in Appendix A also provides
qualifications for teaching High school
classes of Hindi. There are two alternate
qualifications prescribed for Hindi teacher
in High school classes i.e. B.A. with
Hindi and Sanskrit and L.T., B.T. or
B.Ed. or an equivalent qualification of
degree or diploma in teaching. The
alternate qualification provides Sahitya
Ratna two years course from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag with Sanskrit
as an ancient language with refresher
course training. The judgment which has
been relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner has taken the view that
Sahitya Ratna has been treated as
equivalent to B.A. With Hindi and
Sanskrit therefore, the qualification of
B.A. with Sanskrit as provided for
intermediate classes can be very well be
fulfilled by reason of the qualification of
High school teacher. Following has been
laid down in paragraph 6 of the judgment:

"6. A plain reading of the said
Appendix shows that in order to be a
Lecturer in Hindi in an Intermediate
College, a teacher should be M.A. in
Hindi and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri
from the Government Sanskrit College,
Varanasi, now Sampoornand University,
Varanasi. Admittedly, the petitioner did
not have Sanskrit in B.A. nor is a Shastri
from Sampoornand University. For a
High School teacher the qualification is
B.A. in Hindi with Sanskrit or Sahitya
Ratna" in Hindi with Sanskrit. Therefore,
the petitioner was qualified even as
"Sahitya Ratna" for being appointed as a
High School teacher even without being
B.A. and M.A. in Hindi. The petitioner is
M.A. in Hindi and had passed B.A.with
Hindi
but
without
Sanskrit.
The
qualification " Sahitya Ratna" which is
stated to be equivalent to B.A. in Hindi
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
and Sanskrit as provided in clause 2 of
the· qualification for High School teacher
suffice the qualification. "Sahitya Ratna"
has been treated in the Appendix itself as
equivalent to B.A. in Hindi with Sanskrit.
Therefore, the qualification B.A. with
Sanskrit as provided for a teacher in
Intermediate Classes can very well be
fulfilled by reason of the qualification of a
High School Teacher. If he had been
appointed before 5th April, 1974 by
reason of his being appointed as a High
School teacher, he would have been
eligible for promotion to the post of
Lecturer by reason of Notification dated
16th March, 1978, then there cannot be
any earthly reason to deny him such
promotion on the ground of his being
appointed after 5th April, 1974 when he
fulfils the qualification of a High School
teacher as observed earlier. When the
degree of " Sahitya Ratna" from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan has been equated with
B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit, the
qualification B.A. with Sanskrit or Hindi
teacher in intermediate College has to be
reconciled. If such a stand is not taken, in
that event the question of promotion
would become discriminatory. Inasmuch
as a person though qualified to be a
teacher in the High School in Hindi with"
Sahitya Ratna" Degree, he could not be
eligible for promotion though M.A. in
Hindi and B.A. in Hindi only because he
did not have Sanskrit in B.A. The purpose
was to satisfy the qualification that a
teacher should been Sanskrit upto the
standard of Graduation level. When the
degree of" Sahitya Ratna" has been
equated to with graduation level by virtue
of the inclusion of the qualification in the
Appendix itself, there cannot be any other
interpretation of B.A. with Sanskrit for
being appointed as a Hindi Lecturer as
provided in serial NO.2 of the Appendix
imputing a different meaning. "

8. The basis of the judgment in
Purushottam Das Agarwal case (supra) is
that Sahitya Ratna two years course has
been treated equivalent to B.A. with Hindi
and Sanskrit. The above observation is
not supportable from the plain reading of
the item No.2 of Appendix A as quoted
above.
The
qualification
to
teach
intermediate classes i.e. Lecturer Hindi
provides B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri
Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College,
Varanasi
(now
Sampurnanand
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi). Thus, while
prescribing an equivalent qualification of
B.A. with Sanskrit, the rule making
authority has mentioned only Shastri
Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College,
Varanasi. Had the Rule making authority
intended to include the Sahitya Ratna two
years
course
from
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan Prayag, the said qualification
ought to have also been mentioned in
qualifications
prescribed
for
the
intermediate classes, wherein the same
column No. 2 Appendix A while equating
B.A. with Sanskrit for intermediate
classes they have mentioned only one i.e.
Shastri Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit
College, Varanasi and they have used
another course ie. Sahitya Ratna two
years
course
from
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan for High School classes. Nonmentioning of Sahitya Ratna two years
course as equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit
for intermediate classes has relevance and
cannot be treated to be an omission or
without any purpose. It is settled rule of
interpretation that words in a statute are to
be given plain and grammatical meaning
and no words can be added or subtracted.
The
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and
1 All] Chet Ram Gangwal V. State of U.P. and others
241
Another·Vs. State of A.P. reported in
(2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 670 has
laid down that where the language of the
Statute is clear and unambiguous, court
cannot make any addition or substitution
of words, unless otherwise the provision
stands
meaningless
or
of
doubtful
meaning. Following was laid down in
paragraphs 15 and 16 by the Apex Court:

" 15. Where, however, the words
were clear, there is no obscurity, there is
no ambiguity and the intention of the
legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no
scope for the court to innovate or take
upon itself the task of amending or
altering the statutory provisions. In that
situation the judges should not proclaim
that they are playing the role of a lawmaker merely for an exhibition of judicial
valour. They have to remember that there
is a line, though thin, which separates
adjudication from legislation. That line
should not be crossed or erased. This can
be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of
the necessity not to cross it and
instinctive, as well as trained reluctance
to do so". (See Frankfurter" Some
Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in
'Essays on Jurisprudence"'. Columbia
Law Review, p.51.)

16. Words and phrases are symbols
that stimulate mental references to
referents. The object of interpreting a
statute is to ascertain the intention of the
legislature enacting it. (See Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India V. Price
Waterhouse.)
The
intention
of
the
legislature is primarily to be gathered
from the language used, which means the
attention should be paid to what has been
said as also to what has not been said. As
a consequence, a construction which
requires for its support, addition or
substitution of words or which results in
rejection of words as meaningless has to
be avoided. As observed in Crawford V.
Spooner,
Courts
cannot
aid
the
legislatures defective phrasing of an Act,
we cannot add or mend, and by
construction make up deficiencies which
are left there. (See State of Gujrat Vs.
Dilipbhai
NathjibhaJ
Patel.)
1t
is
contrary to all rules of construction to
read words into an Act unless it is
absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock
Vs. Frank Joines (Tipton) Ltd. ) Rules of
interpretation do not permit courts to do
so, unless the provision as it stands is
meaningless or of doubtful meaning.
Courts are not entitled to read words into
an Act of Parliament unless clear reason
for it is to be found within the four
corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord
Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons and
Maxim Ltd. Vs. Evans quoted in Jumma
Masjid V. Kodimaniandra Deviah.)"

9. The mere fact that Sahitya Ratna
two years course from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan has been treated to be an
alternate qualification with B.A. with
Hindi and Sanskrit for High School
classes,
cannot be said that same
qualification can also be read in the
qualification for Lecturer Hindi. Nonmentioning of Sahitya Ratna two years
course, while prescribing qualifications
for Lecturer Hindi, cannot be said to be
without any purpose or intendment when
the Legislature is well aware of both the
qualifications i.e. Shastri Pariksha of
Rajkiya Sanskrit College, Varanasi as
well as Sahitya Ratna and treats the
former as an.alternate qualification for
B.A. with Sanskrit for the purpose of
qualification of Lecturer Hindi and did
not include Sahitya Ratna two years
course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit. To hold
that Sahitya Ratna two years course from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is equivalent to
B.A. with Sanskrit is to add words to
Statute or to read a word in qualifications
which is not present. The Apex Court in
Union of India and others Vs. Tulasi
Ram Patel reported in 1985 (2) SLR 576
has laid down that where there is an
express mention of certain things in the
Act
or
Rules,
then
anything
not
mentioned is excluded. Learned Single
Judge in Purushottam Das Agrawal's case
(supra) proceeded on the premise that
Appendix A has treated Sahitya Ratna as
equivalent to B.A. with Hindi and
Sanskrit, which is not born out from the
Appendix A. Learned Single Judge in the
aforesaid case has also observed that if,
B.A. with Sanskrit or Hindi cannot be
treated equivalent to Sahitya Ratna two
years
course
from
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan, a person though may be
qualified to teach High School classes but
he may not be qualified for promotion as
Lecturer Hindi. It is not necessary that
every teacher who is eligible to teach
High School classes is entitled to be
promoted
as
Lecturer
Hindi.
The
possessing of qualification for promotion
is a necessary condition. This can very
well be illustrated by a simple example. A
person who is not a post graduate can be
appointed to teach High School classes in
Hindi. Can it be said that he not being
eligible
for
promotion
causes
discrimination? The answer obviously is
no. Learned Single Judge has also
observed that not treating Sahitya Ratna
two years course from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan equivalent to B.A. with Hindi
or Sanskrit has discriminatory effect with
regard to right of promotion who is
teaching High School Classes. The above
reason is also unfounded. It is not
necessary that every teacher who is
teaching High School classes should be
promoted as Lecturer irrespective of the
fact whether he possess the specific
qualification
mentioned
for
Lecturer
Hindi. In view of the above, specially the
principles of interpretation as laid down
by the Apex Court, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in Purushottam Das
Agarwal's
case
(supra)
requires
reconsideration by a Division Bench.

Issue notice to the respondent no. 5
in the writ petition.

10. Learned Standing Counsel has
accepted notices on behalf of respondents
no. 1 to 4.

11. The selection on the post of
Lecturer Hindi may take place which shall
however be subject to the result of the
writ petition.

12. Let record of this writ petition be
placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for
considering the constitution of the larger
Bench for consideration of the following
questions.

(i) Whether the judgment of learned
Single
Judge
in
the
case
of
Purushottam Das Agarwal Vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Allahabad and another, reported in
(1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 holding that
a candidate not possessing B.A. with
Sanskrit but possessing two years
course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan is eligible for
promotion as Lecturer, Hindi, lays
down the correct law?

(ii) Whether the qualification of two
years course of Sahitya Ratna from
1 All] Union of India V. Smt. Vidyawati and others
243
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be
treated
a
qualification
for
the
candidates who do not possess the
qualification of B.A. with sanskrit?

Reference made to larger bench.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 275 of 2008

Union of India ...Defendant/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vidyawati & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Govind Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:

Railways
Act
1989-
Section
124-Auntoward
incident-Compensationdeceased traveling having valid ticketunreserved compartment-due to heavy
rush fell down-expired due to serious
injury-held-railway
cannot
shirk
its
responsibility-claimant
entitled
for
compensation.

Held: Para 4

According to us, the appellant has
proceeded with a misconception of law.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger.
In spite of having valid ticket when a
passenger fall down from the railway
due to an untoward incident, he is
entitled for compensation. There is gulf
difference between untoward incident
and self inflicted untoward incident.
Without any specific proof an untoward
incident cannot be said as self inflicted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal is arising out of an
order of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Gorakhpur Bench, dated 12th October,
2007. By the order impugned the Tribunal
allowed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to
the claimants on account of death of the
deceased. The deceased was a police
personnel, who was traveling by train
having valid ticket. The Tribunal gave the
following finding in coming to the
conclusion:-

6.1 Original ticket for journey has
been filed. It is for the correct stations
and date as per application. Ticket was
found from the person of the deceased.
Although, respondent stated that its
genuineness was to be proved by
applicant, tribunal cannot accept this
plea. Original ticket was filed on
15.5.2004 and respondent could very well
have checked it up to 12.6.07 most
diligently. In absence of any specific
defence by respondent, the deceased is
held to be a bonafide passenger at the
time of untoward incident.

6.2 Deceased fell down from train
due to pushing by other passengers who
were in large number. Possibly, he could
not get a seat to sit and had to stand.
Although uncomfortable, such journey is
undertaken by quite a significant number
of passengers overlooking their comfort
and
convenience.
Even
fall
from
footboard at the entrance of coach is an
accidental fall because footboard is part
of coach. Second issue is allowed i.e.
accident in this application was an
untoward incident as per Railway Rules
for compensation."