# Devendra Pal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-22
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4533 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-pal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49114
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Law
-
Promotion
-
Interpretation of Rule 8 - Allahabad High
Court Officer and Staff (Conditions of
Service and Conduct) Rules,1976: Rule
2(m), 3(iv), 8; The Allahabad High Court
Officer and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2021;
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board Rules, 1998.
Points for determination that arises is as to
what qualification should be possessed by
the
candidates
eligible
for
being
considered for promotion in terms of Rule
8 of the Rules 1976 and what would be the
cut-off date fixed for consideration. (Para 23)

To interpret Rule 8, which provides for the
necessary qualification to be possessed for
being considered for promotion, Rule 8 (ii)
clearly stipulates that the persons eligible for
being promoted should have completed five
years continuous satisfactory service as on 1st
July of the year of recruitment and should also
possess the minimum educational qualification
of Intermediate alongwith CCC certificate/
Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from
recognized Institute established by law in India.
The use of the word 'and' as used, on its
plain interpretation would clearly mean
that the candidate should have completed
five
years
of
continuous
satisfactory
service 'and' should possess the minimum
educational qualification. (Para 26)

The Rule has to be interpreted on its
plain and grammatical reading unless it
leads to inference. One of the basic
principles of interpretation of statutes is to
construe them according to plain, literal and
grammatical meaning of the words. If that is
contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express
intention or declared purpose of the Statute,
or
if
it
would
involve
any
absurdity,
repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical
sense must then be modified, extended or
abridged, so far as to avoid such an
inconvenience, but no further. The onus of
showing that the words do not mean what
they say lies heavily on the party who alleges
it. He must advance something which clearly
shows that the grammatical construction
would be repugnant to the intention of the
Act or lead to some manifest absurdity. (Para
21)

B. The next question for determination is as to
whether
the
possession
of
minimum
educational qualification as prescribed in
Rule 8 (2) should be on the date of year of
recruitment i.e. 1st July or the same can
be date when the advertisement is issued.
(Para 15, 28)
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The date of year of recruitment have only
relevance only in respect of the eligibility
of the eligible candidates and it has
nothing to do with the acquisition of the
CCC Certificate. The Rule in question being
Rule 8 has to be interpreted by taking
recourse to the 'Rule of last antecedents'.
(Para 17, 18)

In the present case the requirement of
possession of additional qualification in terms of
Rule 8 (iii) was within the discretion of the High
Court and the High Court in its discretion
permitted the candidates who had completed
five years of continuous satisfactory service as
on 1st July of the year of recruitment and
possess the minimum education qualification of
having a CCC certificate/Diploma/Degree in
Computer Science on the date of issuance of the
advertisement. (Para 35)

That being the case, no fault can be found
with the High Court in permitting the
eligible candidates, who possessed the
requisite qualification on the date of
advertisement.
The
petitioners
and
the
intervenors who have filed an intervention
application, admittedly did not possess the
additional educational qualification on the date
of advertisement, thus they had no claim to be
considered for consideration for appointment
through promotion. (Para 36)

C. The Rule of the Last Antecedent, as per
the
Black's
Law
Dictionary,
is
an
interpretative principle by which a court
determines
that
qualifying
words
or
phrases modify the words or phrases
immediately preceding them and not
words or phrases more remote, unless the
extension is necess

## Text

1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1259
binding effect and Court finds that the
affidavits were given under compulsion to
secure joining and not in anxiety to secure
transfer to the districts of their choice. The
second question is answered accordingly.

34. The writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 25.06.2022 passed by the
Respondent No.2, is hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to prepare the
seniority list according to Sub-Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Rules, 1981 determining the
seniority from the date of joining of the
petitioners.

35. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 4533 of 2022

Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Sri
Sneh Pandey, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Namit Srivastava,
Mrs. Parul Srivastava, Sri Parvez Alam

A.
Service
Law
-
Promotion
-
Interpretation of Rule 8 - Allahabad High
Court Officer and Staff (Conditions of
Service and Conduct) Rules,1976: Rule
2(m), 3(iv), 8; The Allahabad High Court
Officer and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2021;
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board Rules, 1998.
Points for determination that arises is as to
what qualification should be possessed by
the
candidates
eligible
for
being
considered for promotion in terms of Rule
8 of the Rules 1976 and what would be the
cut-off date fixed for consideration. (Para 23)

To interpret Rule 8, which provides for the
necessary qualification to be possessed for
being considered for promotion, Rule 8 (ii)
clearly stipulates that the persons eligible for
being promoted should have completed five
years continuous satisfactory service as on 1st
July of the year of recruitment and should also
possess the minimum educational qualification
of Intermediate alongwith CCC certificate/
Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from
recognized Institute established by law in India.
The use of the word 'and' as used, on its
plain interpretation would clearly mean
that the candidate should have completed
five
years
of
continuous
satisfactory
service 'and' should possess the minimum
educational qualification. (Para 26)

The Rule has to be interpreted on its
plain and grammatical reading unless it
leads to inference. One of the basic
principles of interpretation of statutes is to
construe them according to plain, literal and
grammatical meaning of the words. If that is
contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express
intention or declared purpose of the Statute,
or
if
it
would
involve
any
absurdity,
repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical
sense must then be modified, extended or
abridged, so far as to avoid such an
inconvenience, but no further. The onus of
showing that the words do not mean what
they say lies heavily on the party who alleges
it. He must advance something which clearly
shows that the grammatical construction
would be repugnant to the intention of the
Act or lead to some manifest absurdity. (Para
21)

B. The next question for determination is as to
whether
the
possession
of
minimum
educational qualification as prescribed in
Rule 8 (2) should be on the date of year of
recruitment i.e. 1st July or the same can
be date when the advertisement is issued.
(Para 15, 28)
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The date of year of recruitment have only
relevance only in respect of the eligibility
of the eligible candidates and it has
nothing to do with the acquisition of the
CCC Certificate. The Rule in question being
Rule 8 has to be interpreted by taking
recourse to the 'Rule of last antecedents'.
(Para 17, 18)

In the present case the requirement of
possession of additional qualification in terms of
Rule 8 (iii) was within the discretion of the High
Court and the High Court in its discretion
permitted the candidates who had completed
five years of continuous satisfactory service as
on 1st July of the year of recruitment and
possess the minimum education qualification of
having a CCC certificate/Diploma/Degree in
Computer Science on the date of issuance of the
advertisement. (Para 35)

That being the case, no fault can be found
with the High Court in permitting the
eligible candidates, who possessed the
requisite qualification on the date of
advertisement.
The
petitioners
and
the
intervenors who have filed an intervention
application, admittedly did not possess the
additional educational qualification on the date
of advertisement, thus they had no claim to be
considered for consideration for appointment
through promotion. (Para 36)

C. The Rule of the Last Antecedent, as per
the
Black's
Law
Dictionary,
is
an
interpretative principle by which a court
determines
that
qualifying
words
or
phrases modify the words or phrases
immediately preceding them and not
words or phrases more remote, unless the
extension is necessary from the context or
the spirit of the entire writing. The lexicon
exemplifies the canon: in the phrase 'Texas
courts, New Mexico courts, and New York courts
in the federal system,' the words 'in the federal
system' might be held to modify only New York
courts and not Texas courts or New Mexico
courts. This canon is variably termed 'the
doctrine of the last antecedent'; 'the doctrine of
the last preceding antecedent." (Para 18)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of H.P. & ors. Vs Raj Kumar & ors., Civil
Appeal
No.
9746
of
2011,
decided
on
20.05.2022 (Para 17)

2. Anoop M.S. Manelil House, Valayanchirangara
Po, Perumbavoor Vs St. of Kerala represented by
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Taxes,
Secretariat, & ors., Kerala High Court, judgment
dated 12.01.2017 (Para 18)

3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58 (Para 19)

4. St. of Andhra Pradesh Vs Linde India Ltd.
(Formerly BOC India Limited), (2020) 16 SCC
335 (Para 21)

Precedent distinguished:

Smt. Sadhna Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2017 6 ADJ
418 (Para 16)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri Sameer Sharma, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Busra
Mariyam, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 and 3, Shri Namit Srivastava, who
appears for the selected candidates and
whose
impleadment
application
was
allowed on 05.12.2022, Shri Akhilesh
Kumar Singh, who appears for the
Intervener who had also appeared in the
written examination and Shri Parvez Alam,
who appears and has filed an impleadment
application on behalf of candidates who
had not been selected, however, their marks
have not been disclosed only on account of
the pendency of the writ petition.

2.
 The
issue
that
arises
for
consideration
is
confined
to
the
interpretation of Rule 8 of the Allahabad
1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1261
High Court Officer and Staff (Conditions of
Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 as
amened in the year 2021 notified on
27.03.2021.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioners claimed to be working as Class-IV
employees in the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and claim that their service
conditions are governed by the 1976 Rules. It
is claimed that in pursuance to the
amendment carried out in Rule 8 of the 1976
Rules, the petitioners were entitled for being
considered for promotion and the petitioners
ought to have been given the benefit of their
having
the
CCC Certificate
prior
to
consideration of the candidature and prior to
finalization of the results.

4. It is argued that the High Court by
means of a notification dated 21st December,
2020 had issued an advertisement calling for
applications for appointment to 17 posts of
Computer Assistant by way of promotion
amongst Class-IV employees. The said
advertisement is annexed as Annexure-3 to
the writ petition. In terms of the said
advertisement, it was incumbent upon the the
candidate who desirous for consideration to
file an application on or before 16.01.2021.
The advertisement, as issued, is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD

ESTABLISHMENT SECTION
NOTICE

No. 6127/Establishment: Dated:
Allahabad: December, 21, 2020

Applications are invited from Class IV
employees of the High Court, Allahabad &
Lucknow
Bench
having
minimum
qualification of High School or equivalent
examination
recognized
by
the
U.P.
Government and five years continuous
satisfactory service in Class IV on or before
01.07.2020 for filling up 17 vacant posts in
the cadre of Computer Assistant.

The promotion shall be made on the
basis
of
merit
through
competitive
examination. The Mode, Date and Venue of
examination shall be notified later on.

The desirous candidates are required
to fill up Application Form as per enclosed
format and submit the same before the
Registrar (J) (S&A/Establishment) through
the
Nazarat
Section
on
or
before
16.01.2021. Applications received after the
last date will not be entertained.

Sd

Registrar General
Enclosure- As Above"

5. It is argued that the advertisement
was in pursuance to the conditions as
prescribed in the Amendment Rules of
2021. The amended Rules of 2021
particularly Rule 8 is concerned, is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"The Allahabad High Court Officers
and Staff (Conditions of Service and
Conduct) (Amendment Rules, 2021)

1. Short title and commencement :-
(1) These rules may be called the
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff
(Conditions of Service and Conduct)
(Amendment) Rules, 2021.

(2) These Rules shall come into force
from the date of publication in the official
Gazette.

2. Definition :- In these Rules, unless
the context otherwise requires, "Rules"
mean the Allahabad High Court Officers
and Staff (Conditions of Service and
Conduct) Rules, 1976.

3. Amendment of Rule 8 :- Clause (ii)
of Rule 8 (a) (i) of the Rules shall be
amended as follows :-
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Existing Provision
Amendment
(ii)
40%
by
promotion
from
Class IV employees
who have completed
five years continuous
satisfactory service
as on 1st July of the
year of recruitment
on
merit
through
competitive
examination.
(ii)
40%
by
promotion on merit
through competitive
examination
from
Class IV employees
who have completed
five years continuous
satisfactory service
as on 1st July of the
year of recruitment
and
possess
the
minimum
educational
qualification
of
Intermediate along
with
CCC
Certificate/ Diploma
/
Degree
of
Computer
Science
from
recognized
Institute established
by law in India.

6. It is stated that the petitioners
moved a representation on 27.09.2021
before the Registrar General, High Court,
stating
that
they
had
attained
the
qualification of CCC subsequent to the
dates specified in the advertisement and
they should be permitted to appear in the
departmental examination on the basis of
seniority. The said representation did not
find favour and the names of the petitioners
do not appear in the list of candidates, who
are eligible for departmental examination,
which lead to the petitioner to file present
writ petition being Writ-A No. 4533 of
2022.

7. When the writ petition was filed,
one of the averments made by the
petitioners is that they were entitled to
appear in the departmental examination by
virtue of their seniority and they have been
acquired the CCC qualification with the
permission of the High Court and thus they
should be permitted to appear in the
departmental examination.

8. In the present writ petition, an
interim order came to be passed by this
Court
on
08.04.2022,
whereby
11
candidates out of the total petitioners were
permitted
to
appear
in
the
written
examination on their producing the CCC
Certificates. The writ petition in respect of
petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 13 and 14 was
dismissed by this Court and the interim
order was confined to the other petitioners.

9. Aggrieved against the said interim
order, a Special Appeal came to be
preferred, which was heard and decided by
judgment dated 27.04.2022, whereby the
order passed by the learned Single Judge
was modified with a further direction that
in respect of the petitioners, who were
permitted to undergo the examination on
10.04.2022 in pursuance to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge on
08.04.2022, the result shall not be declared
and shall abide by the outcome of the writ
petition. The other results to be declared
were also be subject to the outcome of the
writ petition. A request was made for
disposal of the writ petition on merits.
While deciding the appeal, the Appellate
Court had made reference to the judgments
as referred in the said order.

10. It is on record that subsequent to
the decision of the Special Appeal Court on
27.04.2022, applications were moved for
review of the said order, which was decided
on 24.05.2022 holding that the observations
made in the writ petition would not
influence the learned Single Judge, who
shall to proceed to decide the writ petition
1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1263
without
being
influenced
by
any
observations made by the Special Appeal
Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2022.

11. In the light of the said, Shri Radha
Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate argues
that the observations made in the Special
Appeal Court have lost their relevance and
this Court is to decide the issue on merits
without being influenced by any of the
observations made by the Special Appeal
Court.

12. Shri Sameer Sharma, learned
Senior Advocate informs that in pursuance
to the advertisement, the selections have
already been made and the appointment
letters have issued to as many as 17
persons.

13. The said selected candidates are
represented by Shri Namit Srivastava,
Advocate, who argues that in terms of the
selection, the candidates have also joined
w.e.f. 25.05.2022.

14. Shri A.K. Singh, Advocate who
has filed an intervener application argues
on behalf of candidates, who are similar to
the one who have filed the petition that
they were also permitted to appear in the
departmental examination by the High
Court itself without there being any order
in their favour by the Court and as such
outcome of the writ petition could have an
effect on their candidature also.

15. Considering the submissions made
at the bar, the main submission for
consideration is as to whether the candidates
who had the qualification as was prescribed
in the Amended Rules would be from the
year of recruitment i.e. 01.07.2020 or on the
date when the advertisement was issued.

16. The said issue basically arises on
account of submission of Shri Ojha that
with
regard
to
the
recruitment
by
promotion, the law is well settled that the
eligibility should be crystallized on the date
of the year of recruitment when the
vacancies are ascertained and no leverage
can be exercised by the Appointing
Authority to take a different view from the
year of recruitment. He further argues that
if the said benefit is granted to the persons
who
have
acquired
the
qualification
subsequent to the date of recruitment i.e.
1st July, 2020, the same benefit ought to
have been extended to the petitioners also,
who had acquired the qualification of CCC
before the date of written examination
although
subsequent
to
date
of
advertisement. Shri Ojha places reliance on
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Smt. Sadhna Vs. State of U.P.
and Others; 2017 6 ADJ 418.

17. Shri Sameer Sharma, Senior
Advocate on the basis of the interpretation
of the Rules argues that the date of year of
recruitment have only relevance only in
respect of the eligibility of the eligible
candidates and it has nothing to do with the
acquisition of the CCC Certificate. He
placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Raj
Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9746
of 2011, decided on 20th May, 2022 and
particularly emphasises paragraph no. 36,
which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"36. A review of the fifteen cases that
have
distinguished
Rangaiah
would
demonstrate that this Court has been
consistently carving out exceptions to the
broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah.
The findings in these judgments, that have
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a direct bearing on the proposition
formulated by Rangaiah are as under:
1. There is no rule of universal application
that vacancies must be necessarily filled on
the basis of the law which existed on the
date when they arose, Rangaiah's case must
be understood in the context of the rules
involved therein.

2. It is now a settled proposition of law
that a candidate has a right to be
considered in the light of the existed rules,
which implies the "rule in force" as on the
date consideration takes place. The right to
be considered for promotion occurs on the
date of consideration of the eligible
candidates.

3. The Government is entitled to take a
conscious policy decision not to fill up the
vacancies arising prior to the amendment
of the rules. The employee does not acquire
any vested right to being considered for
promotion in accordance with the repealed
rules in view of the policy decision taken by
the Government. There is no obligation for
the Government to make appointments as
per the old rules in the event of
restructuring of the cadre is intended for
efficient working of the unit. The only
requirement is that the policy decisions of
the
Government
must
be
fair
and
reasonable and must be justified on the
touchstone of Article 14.

4. The principle in Rangaiah need not
be applied merely because posts were
created, as it is not obligatory for the
appointing authority to fill up the posts
immediately.

5. When there is no statutory duty cast
upon the State to consider appointments to
vacancies
that
existed
prior
to
the
amendment, the State cannot be directed to
consider the cases."

18. Shri Sameer Sharma next
proceeds to argue that the Rule in question
being Rule 8 has to be interpreted by taking
recourse to the ''Rule of last antecedents' as
was interpreted by the Kerala High Court in
its judgment dated 12.01.2017 in the case
of
Anoop
M.S.
Manelil
House,
Valayanchirangara Po, Perumbavoor Vs.
State of Kerala represented by Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Taxes,
Secretariat, and Others. He particularly
places reliance on para 50 of the said
judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"50. The Rule of the Last Antecedent,
as per the Black's Law Dictionary, is an
interpretative principle by which a court
determines
that
qualifying
words
or
phrases modify the words or phrases
immediately preceding them and not words
or phrases more remote, unless the
extension is necessary from the context or
the spirit of the entire writing. The lexicon
exemplifies the canon: in the phrase 'Texas
courts, New Mexico courts, and New York
courts in the federal system,' the words 'in
the federal system' might be held to modify
only New York courts and not Texas courts
or New Mexico courts. This canon is
variably termed 'the doctrine of the last
antecedent'; 'the doctrine of the last
preceding antecedent."

19. He also places reliance on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case
of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) and Others; (2013) 11 SCC 58
and draws my attention to the judgment
considered by the Supreme Court in the
said judgment to argue that the requisite
qualification required can be on the date as
specified in the advertisement.

20. Shri Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate, on rejoinder argues that the
judgment cited by Shri Sameer Sharma
relates to direct recruitment and not to
1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1265
recruitment through promotion and as such
there is no relevance of the said judgments.
He again emphasis on the Full Bench
judgement in the case of Smt. Sadhna
(Supra).

21. Shri Sameer Sharma further
argues that the Rule has to be interpreted on
its plain and grammatical reading unless it
leads to inference. For the said proposition,
he places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Linde India Limited
(Formerly BOC India Limited); (2020) 16
SCC 335 and emphasis on paragraph nos.
18 to 21 of the said judgment, which is
quoted hereinbelow:

"18. Similarly, Craies on Statute Law
states:

"One of the basic principles of
interpretation of statutes is to construe
them according to plain, literal and
grammatical meaning of the words. If that
is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any
express intention or declared purpose of the
Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity,
repugnancy
or
inconsistency,
the
grammatical sense must then be modified,
extended or abridged, so far as to avoid
such an inconvenience, but no further. The
onus of showing that the words do not
mean what they say lies heavily on the
party who alleges it. He must advance
something which clearly shows that the
grammatical
construction
would
be
repugnant to the intention of the Act or lead
to some manifest absurdity."

19. The words of a statute should be
first understood in their natural, ordinary
or
popular
sense
and
phrases
and
sentences should be construed according to
their grammatical meaning, unless that
leads to some absurdity or unless there is
something in the context, or in the object of
the statute to suggest the contrary. Where a
word has a secondary meaning, the
assessment is whether the natural, ordinary
or popular meaning flows from the context
in which the word has been employed. In
such cases, the distinction disappears and
courts must adopt the meaning which flows
as a matter of plain interpretation and the
context in which the word appears.

20. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it
was contended that the safeguards provided
in Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act
1985
regarding search of any person would also
apply to any bag, briefcase or any such
article or container, which is being carried
by the person. The word "person" was not
defined in the Act. A three judge Bench of
this Court, having regard to the scheme of
the Act and the context in which the word
― "person" has been used, rejected the
contention and held thus:

"8. One of the basic principles of
interpretation of statutes is to construe
them according to plain, literal and
grammatical meaning of the words. If that
is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any
express intention or declared purpose of the
statute, or if it would involve any absurdity,
repugnancy
or
inconsistency,
the
grammatical sense must then be modified,
extended or abridged, so far as to avoid
such an inconvenience, but no further. The
onus of showing that the words do not
mean what they say lies heavily on the
party who alleges it. He must advance
something which clearly shows that the
grammatical
construction
would
be
repugnant to the intention of the Act or lead
to some manifest absurdity."

The
above
canon
of
statutory
interpretation
has
been
consistently
followed by this Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh v Pawan Kumar, State of Haryana
v Suresh, State of Rajasthan v Babu Ram
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Commissioner of Customs (Import),
Mumbai v Dilip Kumar and Company.

21. The word "medicine" is defined in
Black's Law Dictionary thus:

"Medicine - the science and art
dealing with the prevention, cure and
alleviation of diseases; in a narrower sense
that part of science and art of restoring and
preserving health which is the province of
the physician as distinguished from the
surgeon and obstetrician."

Collins
Dictionary
for
Advanced
Learners defines "medicine" thus:

"Medicine is the treatment of illness
and injuries by doctors and nurses; is a
substance that you drink or swallow to cure
an illness"

Cambridge
Dictionary
defines
"medicine" as:

"A drug that is used to treat illness or
injury; the science dealing with the
preserving of health and with preventing
and treating disease or injury." The
ordinary or popular understanding of the
term medicine is characterized by its
curative
properties
in
general
andspecifically, its use for or in diagnosis,
treatment, mitigation or prevention of any
disease or disorder."

22. Shri Ojha controverts the same by
saying that interpretation of Rules in
service jurisprudence cannot be the same as
interpretation of statute relating to taxation
where the interpretation has to be strict
whereas
in
the
case
of
service
jurisprudence the Court has to adopt
purposive interpretation.

23. On the basis of the argument
raised at the bar, as recorded above, this
Court is to interpret the Rules and the
points for determination that arises is as to
what qualification should be possessed by
the candidates eligible for being considered
for promotion in terms of Rule 8 of the
Rules 1976 and what would be the cut-off
date fixed for consideration. It is relevant to
quote Rule 2 (m) of the Rules of 1976,
which defines year of recruitment, which is
as under:-

"(m)''Year of Recruitment' means the
period of twelve months commencing from
the first day of July of a calendar year;"

24. Rule 3 which provides for
strength of establishment is also relevant
for the present case and is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"3. Strength of the establishment (I)
The strength of the service and of each
category of posts therein shall be such as
may be determined by the Chief Justice
from time to time with the approval of the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh.

(II) The ratio between the number of
posts in various categories shall be such as
prevailing in the corresponding categories
of officers and subordinates in the Uttar
Pradesh Civil Secretariat.
(III) The strength of the service and of each
category of posts therein shall, until
ordersvarying the same are passed under
subrule (I), be as given below

Name of Post
No. of Post
Computer Assistant
40
Assistant Review Officer 336
Review Officer
833
Section Officer
225
Assistant Registrar
79
Deputy Registrar
42
Joint Registrar
18
Registrar
07
1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1267

(IV) Provided that:

I. The appointing authority may leave
unfilled or the Chief Justice may hold in
abeyance any vacant post without thereby
entitling any person to compensation; or
II. The Chief Justice may create such
additional permanent or temporary posts
as he may consider proper with the
approval of the Governor."

25. Rule 8 of the said Rules is already
quoted hereinabove.

26. To interpret Rule 8, which
provides for the necessary qualification to
be possessed for being considered for
promotion, Rule 8 (ii) clearly stipulates that
the persons eligible for being promoted
should
have
completed
five
years
continuous satisfactory service as on 1st
July of the year of recruitment and should
also possess the minimum educational
qualification of Intermediate alongwith
CCC
certificate/Diploma/Degree
in
Computer
Science
from
recognized
Institute established by law in India. The
use of the word ''and' as used, on its plain
interpretation would clearly mean that the
candidate should have completed five years
of continuous satisfactory service ''and'
should possess the minimum educational
qualification.

27. The submission of Shri Ojha that
the possession of minimum educational
qualification should also be on 1st July of
the year of recruitment merits rejection as
on the plain meaning of the Rule, it does
not transpire that the possession of
minimum educational qualification should
also be on the 1st July of the year of
recruitment. It is well settled that a Rule
should be interpreted on its plain meaning
unless the same results in absurdity. On a
plain reading of the said Rules, as recorded,
I have no hesitation in holding that the
requirement stipulated in the Rules is that
the persons should have completed five
years of continuous satisfactory service as
on 1st July of the year of recruitment
and/plus should also possess the minimum
educational qualification as specified under
the Rules.

28.

The
next
question
for
determination
is
as
to
whether
the
possession
of
minimum
educational
qualification as prescribed in Rule 8 (2)
should be on the date of year of recruitment
i.e. 1st July or the same can be date when
the advertisement is issued.

29. Shri Ojha would argue that the
prescription of minimum qualification in
terms of Rule 8 (2) should be interpreted to
mean
that
the
additional
minimum
educational
qualification
should
be
possessed by the candidate on the 1st July
of the year of recruitment is based upon the
interpretation of Full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Sadhna (Supra).

30. The Full Bench in the said case by
majority of 4 to 1 decided that the
qualification should be possessed from the
1st day of the year of recruitment. While
interpreting
the
provisions
of
U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Rules 1998, the Full Bench was
interpreted the Rules in view of there being
specific
mandate
cast
upon
the
Management of the Institutions to notify
the vacancy in the proforma given in
Appendix-A. The Full Bench recorded the
following in paragraph no. 34:-

"34. The Commission was conferred
powers to require the Inspector to notify the
vacancies, where the Management has
failed to do so."
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

31. The Full Court noticed the
mandate cast upon the Management for
notifying
the
vacancy
and
while
interpreting the Rules, the Court was
swayed by the fact that the Management of
an Institution is bound to determine the
number of vacancy in terms of Section 15
(1) of the Act and to notify them through
the Inspector to the Commission for
appointment. The Court was of the view
that any leverage given to the Management
can lead to misuse of power by the
Management. The Full Court recorded in
paragraph nos. 44 and 48 as under:-

"44.The amendments, which had been
made in the Act, 1982 and the Rules from
time to time had following effect:

Under Section 10 of the Parent Act,
the
Management
had
to
notify
the
vacancies to the Commission for making
appointment of teachers specified in
Schedule while in respect of teachers other
than those specified in Schedule, the
Management had to notify the vacancies to
the Selection Board as is clear from Section
15 of the Parent Act.

For the first time under the U.P. Act 1
of 1993 the concept of determination of
vacancies by the Management of the
institution, was provided for, with a
direction that the vacancies likely to fall
vacant during year of recruitment shall be
included in such determination.

48.
This
determination
by
the
management
in
respect
of
direct
recruitment is to be made under Rule 11 of
the 1998 Rules quoted herein above. The
statement of the vacancies so determined
by the management has to be sent to the
District Inspector of Schools by 15th of
July of the year of recruitment in proforma
given in Appendix "A", and the Inspector,
after verifying it from the records of his
office, has to prepare a consolidated
statement of the vacancies of all the
institutions in the district subject-wise and
group-wise in respect of Trained Graduate
Grade posts. The statement so prepared by
the Inspector must be sent by 31st of July of
the year of recruitment with a copy thereof
to the Joint Director of Education. The
State Government has however, been given
the power to fix other dates for notification
in respect of any particular year of
recruitment."

32. The reasoning which weighed in
the mind of the Court for interpreting the
said Rules are indicated in paragraph nos.
68 and 74, which are quoted as under:-

"68. We are also of the opinion that
the view of the Full Bench in the case of
Raeesul Hasan (Supra), while holding that
the purpose for deletion of the words "by
promotion" in Rule 11 of Rules 1998 in
juxtaposition with Rule 11 (2) of Rules,
1995, is that no time limit has been fixed in
the matter of intimation of vacancies for
which promotion is to be made, is not
correct. Rule 10 provides for two sources of
appointment only i.e by direct recruitment
and promotion only, determination of
number of vacancies for direct recruitment
in a recruitment year would necessarily
entail the determination of the vacancies
which would fall for promotion in the same
recruitment year. Once the vacancies for
direct
recruitment
are
determined,
remaining vacancies, if any, would fall
within the promotion quota.

It has escaped the attention of Full
Bench that there had been a departure in
the matter of procedure to be adopted for
direct recruitment/promotion as per Rules
of 1995, vis-a-vis, the procedure for
promotion under Rule 12 of Rules, 1998.
This change was necessitated because of
amendments made in Section 10 and
1 All. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1269
addition of Chapter III which includes
Section 12 by the Act, 1998. Under Rule 11
(2) of Rules, 1998 intimation of the
vacancies is to be ultimately communicated
to the Selection Board for advertisement for
direct recruitment in the proforma given in
Appendix 'A' while list of teachers eligible
for promotion is to be communicated to the
Joint Director of Education in the proforma
given in Appendix 'A'. It is for this reason
that the determination and intimation of
vacancies for promotion quota to the
Selection Board, as provided under Rule 11
(2) of Rules, 1995 was done away. The
authority for promotion has been identified
as Regional Selection Committee of which
the Joint Director of Education is the
Chairman in place of Selection Board as
provided earlier.

So far as the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Balbir Singh &
Another versus U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board, Allahabad &
Others reported in 2008 (3) ESC 409 (SC)
relied upon by the Full Bench in the case of
Raeesul Hasan (Supra) is concerned, it
may be noticed that in the judgment of the
High Court in the case of Anand Narain
Singh versus Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education
Service,
Selection
Board
reported in 2003 (2) UPLBEC 899, giving
rise to the appeal before the Apex Court
itself in the case of Balbir Singh (Supra),
there is a specific recital in paragraph nos.
64 and 129 (iv) to the following effect:

"64. The facts here are different than
the two cases previously mentioned in
paragraph 58. These cases are of direct
appointment unlike cases cited by the
petitioners (paragraph 58) on this point.
Those cases related to promotion. The
vacancies in case of direct appointments
are notified by an advertisement and all the
vacancies
as
mentioned
in
the
advertisement have to be filled up. They are
not required to be filled up year-wise: at
least there is nothing in the Act or in the
Rules to warrant this.

.........

129. My conclusions and directions
are as follows:

..............

(iv)
In
the
present
case,
the
appointments are being made by direct
recruitment and not by promotion:

Vacancies
need
not
be
marked
separately for any particular recruitment
year;

They could be clubbed together.

While filling these vacancies, the law
as applicable on the occurrence of vacancy
need not be applied.

..............."

74.Even otherwise fixation of a
particular date i.e. when a candidate
from feeding cadre is to be judged to be
eligible or not has to be fixed rather than
being kept fluid at the whims and fancies
of the private Management."

33. In the present case, the judgment
of the Full Court may not have any
relevance in interpreting the Rules at
hand as there is no peri materia
provisions in the 1976 Rules and such
requirement mandates the Chief Justice
or any one to inform the number of
vacancies, which fall due, a mischief that
was apprehended to be played by the
Management of the Institution in the
judgment of the Full Bench in the Case of
Sadhna (Supra), I take the said view
also in view of the provisions of Rule 3
(iv) of the 1976 Rules, which leave to the
discretion of the Chief Justice to hold the
post in abeyance and also to create
additional permanent or temporary post
as may be considered by the Chief Justice
to be proper with the approval of the
Governor.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. That being the case, the
submission of Shri Ojha deserves to be
rejected.

35.

In
the
present
case
the
requirement of possession of additional
qualification in terms of Rule 8 (iii) was
within the discretion of the High Court and
the High Court in its discretion permitted
the candidates who had completed five
years of continuous satisfactory service as
on 1st July of the year of recruitment and
possess
the
minimum
education
qualification
of
having
a
CCC
certificate/Diploma/Degree in Computer
Science on the date of issuance of the
advertisement.

36. That being the case, no fault can
be found with the High Court in permitting
the eligible candidates, who possessed the
requisite qualification on the date of
advertisement. The petitioners and the
intervenors who have filed an intervention
application, admittedly did not possess the
additional educational qualification on the
date of advertisement, thus they had no
claim to be considered for consideration for
appointment through promotion.

37. The second argument of Shri Ojha
that the petitioners as well as the
intervenors should be granted the benefit as
was granted to the candidates who were
found to be eligible is misfounded as the
persons who were found eligible possessed
the
qualification
on
the
date
of
advertisement whereas the petitioners and
intervenors admittedly did not possess the
qualification on the date of advertisement.
Thus, they have no right to be considered
for promotion clearly because they did not
possess the minimum qualification on the
date of advertisement. Thus, to that extent
the claim of the petitioners as well as the
intervenors deserves to be rejected and is,
accordingly, rejected.

38. The mere fact that the petitioners
and the intervenors were permitted to
appear in the examination by virtue of
order of learned Single Judge passed on
08.04.2022 in the case of the petitioners
and the intervenors being permitted to
appear in the examination despite there
being no order in their favour would not
confer any rights upon the petitioners and
intervenors.

39. The writ petition is dismissed for
all the reasonings as recorded above.
However, the respondents are directed to
declare the results of all the candidates who
had appeared in the examination and had
the requisite qualification on the date of
advertisement.

40. To further clarify the results of all
candidates other than the petitioners and
intervenors shall be declared.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 5390 of 2022

Kamal Nayan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri
Shantanu
Khare,
Ms.
Neha
Roy
Chaudhary,
Sri
Kauntey
Singh,
Sri
Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents: