# DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2008] 11 S.C.R. 992
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-08-06
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEAL No. 4908 of 2008
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-rajbir-singh-dalal-v-chaudhari-devi-lal-university-sirsa-anr-23482
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Education - Universities - Appointment/Selection - Post
of Reader in Public Administration - Appointment of person
c possessing academic qualification in discipline of Political
Science - Challenge to - Appointment/selection set aside by
High Court relying on Dr; Bhanu Prasad's case that Political
Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate
subjects - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - ApplyD ing the Anusanga principle, expression 'relevant subject'
should be inserted in the qualification for post of Reader after
words "at the Master's degree level" - It cannot be said that it
was not necessary for appointee to have Master's degree in
the relevant·subject for appointment to the post of ReaderHowever, academic experts regarded Political Science and
E Public Administration to be inter-related and inter-changeable
subjects - Thus, this Court should not sit in appeal over their
opinion - More so, appointee selected by selection committee of eminent experts- Furthermore, Dr. Bhanu Prasad's case
cannot be treated as a precedent, since it is not based on any
·F
reasoning but on concession - Mimansa Rules of lnterpreta-
·~
tion - Anusanga principle - Precedents.
Interpretation of statues - Mimansa Rules of lnterpretation - Anusanga principle - Discussed.
G
Precedents - Precedential value of decision - Held:
Decision of Court is a precedent if it lays down some principle
of Jaw supported by reasons - Mere casual observations or
1
directions without laying down any principle of law and without
giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.
H
992
OR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 993
)'
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
The respondent issued an advertisement for direct A
recruitment to the post of Reader in Public Administration. Appellant, a post graduate degree and Ph.D in Political Science applied for the post and was selected. Respondent No. 2, Lecturer in Public Administration also
applied for the post but was not selected. Respondent B
No. 3 filed writ petition challenging the appointment of
appellant since the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration. High Court relying on Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's
case that Public Administration and Political Science are c
distinct and separate disciplines and the UGC Regulation
that for appointment to the post of Reader a candidate
would have to be quali~ied in the relevant subject, set aside
the selection and appointment of the appellant. Hence the
present appeal.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Per Katju, J:
1.1 The ordinary principle of interpretation is that
words should neither be added nor deleted from a statuE
tory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the
rule where the alternative lies between either supplying
by implication words which appear to have been acciden-·
tally omitted, or adopting a strict construction which leads
)
to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all
meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply F
the words. [Para 13] [1003 G D]
Siraj-ul-Haq vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, UP AIR
1959 SC 198; State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohammad AIR
1981 SC 17 44; Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs. Ra nip Nagarpalika G
AIR 2000 SC 135; Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railtr
way vs. T R. Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216 - referred to.
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh, 9th edn. pp 71-76 - referred to.
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S. C.R.
A
1.2 The Mimansa principles were regularly used by
great jurist for interpreting the legal texts. In Mimansa,
casus omissus is known as adhyahara. The adhyahara
principle permits to add words to a legal text. However,
the superiority of the Mimansa Principles· over Maxwell's
B Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention
the sub-categories coming under the general category of
casus omissus. In the Mimansa system, the gener

## Text

_Characters 0–39,248 of 46,975. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39248 for what follows._

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 992
~
A
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL
v.
CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
(CIVIL APPEAL No. 4908 of 2008)
B
AUGUST 6, 2008
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
Education - Universities - Appointment/Selection - Post
of Reader in Public Administration - Appointment of person
c possessing academic qualification in discipline of Political
Science - Challenge to - Appointment/selection set aside by
High Court relying on Dr; Bhanu Prasad's case that Political
Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate
subjects - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - ApplyD ing the Anusanga principle, expression 'relevant subject'
should be inserted in the qualification for post of Reader after
words "at the Master's degree level" - It cannot be said that it
was not necessary for appointee to have Master's degree in
the relevant·subject for appointment to the post of ReaderHowever, academic experts regarded Political Science and
E Public Administration to be inter-related and inter-changeable
subjects - Thus, this Court should not sit in appeal over their
opinion - More so, appointee selected by selection committee of eminent experts- Furthermore, Dr. Bhanu Prasad's case
cannot be treated as a precedent, since it is not based on any
·F
reasoning but on concession - Mimansa Rules of lnterpreta-
·~
tion - Anusanga principle - Precedents.
Interpretation of statues - Mimansa Rules of lnterpretation - Anusanga principle - Discussed.
G
Precedents - Precedential value of decision - Held:
Decision of Court is a precedent if it lays down some principle
of Jaw supported by reasons - Mere casual observations or
1
directions without laying down any principle of law and without
giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.
H
992
OR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 993
)'
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
The respondent issued an advertisement for direct A
recruitment to the post of Reader in Public Administration. Appellant, a post graduate degree and Ph.D in Political Science applied for the post and was selected. Respondent No. 2, Lecturer in Public Administration also
applied for the post but was not selected. Respondent B
No. 3 filed writ petition challenging the appointment of
appellant since the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration. High Court relying on Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's
case that Public Administration and Political Science are c
distinct and separate disciplines and the UGC Regulation
that for appointment to the post of Reader a candidate
would have to be quali~ied in the relevant subject, set aside
the selection and appointment of the appellant. Hence the
present appeal.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Per Katju, J:
1.1 The ordinary principle of interpretation is that
words should neither be added nor deleted from a statuE
tory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the
rule where the alternative lies between either supplying
by implication words which appear to have been acciden-·
tally omitted, or adopting a strict construction which leads
)
to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all
meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply F
the words. [Para 13] [1003 G D]
Siraj-ul-Haq vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, UP AIR
1959 SC 198; State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohammad AIR
1981 SC 17 44; Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs. Ra nip Nagarpalika G
AIR 2000 SC 135; Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railtr
way vs. T R. Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216 - referred to.
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh, 9th edn. pp 71-76 - referred to.
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S. C.R.
A
1.2 The Mimansa principles were regularly used by
great jurist for interpreting the legal texts. In Mimansa,
casus omissus is known as adhyahara. The adhyahara
principle permits to add words to a legal text. However,
the superiority of the Mimansa Principles· over Maxwell's
B Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention
the sub-categories coming under the general category of
casus omissus. In the Mimansa system, the general category of adhyahara has under it several sub-categories,
e.g., anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. [Para 20]
C [1003 CD, 1005-B]
1.3 ·The anusanga principle or elliptical extension
states that an expression occurring in one ctause is often meant also for a neighbouring clause, and it is only
0 for economy that it is only mentioned in the former;
, Anusanga principle has further sub-categorization. If a
clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be
read into a previous sentence it is a case of Tadapakarsha,
but when it is vice-versa it is case of Tadutkarsha. [Para
22] [1005 E F]
E
Beni Prasad v. Hardai Bibi 1892 ILR 14 All 67 (FB) -
referred to.
'Mimansa Rules of Interpretation' by K.L. Sarkar; Jaimini
2, 2, 16; History of the Dharmashastra' byP V. Kane Vol. V, Pt.
F II, Ch. XXIX and Ch. XXX, pp. 1282-1351 - referred to.
1 ~4 In the instant case, the Anusanga principle of
Mimansa should be utilized and the expression 'relevant
subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for
the post of Reader after the words "at the Master's deG gree level". It cannot be said that in the UGC Regulation
for the post of Lecturer the requirement was a Master's
degree in the relevant subject, whereas the expression
'in the relevant subject' is not mentioned in the qualifications for the post of Reader; and it was not necessary for,
H the appellant to have a Master's degree in the relevant
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 995
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
subject for appointment to the post of Reader. To take a A
contrary view would lead to a strange situation as that
would mean that a person who has an M.A. degree in
Music or History, is qualified to be appointed as Reader
in Political Science. [Paras 11, 12 and 26] [1006 F, 1003-B]
2.1 On a clarification sought from the UGC whether a B
candidate who possesses a Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political
Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subject of
Political Science and Public Administration are inter- c
changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible
as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. [Para 31]
[1007 F-H]
2.2 A large number of universities in this country have D
a single department for both the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration, which demonstrates that
the subjects Political Science and Public Administration
are inter-changeable and inter-related. Political Science
is the mother subject and Public Administration is the offE
shoot of the same. [Para 32] [1008 B]
2.3 It is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal
over the opinion of the academic experts who are of the
view that Political Science and Public Administration are
>
inter-related and inter-changeable subjects, and hence a F
candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political
Science and vice-versa. A large number of persons having qualifications in the inter-changeable/inter-related
subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/LeeG
turers and are continuing as such in various colleges and
r
universities in the State. [Para 33] [1008 C to E]
-
2.4 In the counter affidavit filed by the respondentuniversity before the High Court, it has been specifically
stated therein that Public Administration is one of the H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected by a selection committee consisting of eminent
experts after evaluating his qualifications and work. [Pa~a
34] [1008 F]
Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. 2001
rB (8) SCC 546; University of Mysore vs. G.D. Govinda Rao, AIR
1965 SC 491; Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain JT 1991
(4) SC 75; Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean, B. J. Medical
College and Ors. JT 1992(1) SC 583; Rajender Prasad
Mathur vs. Karnataka University and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1448;
C PM. Bhargava and Ors. vs. U. G. C. and Anr. 2004 (6) SCC
661; Chairman, J and K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik and Ors (2000) 3 SCC 59, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. vs. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi &
Anr. 1977 (1) SCC 279; Medical Council of India vs. Sarang
D . and Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 427; Bhagwan Singh and Anr. vs. State
of Punjab and Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 - referred to.
3.1 The decision of a Court is a precedent if it lays
down some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere
casual observations or directions without laying down any
E principle of law and without giving reasons does not
amount to a precedent. [Paras 38] [1009 E]
3.2 The decision of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad
Panda's case cannot be read as a Enclid's formula or
F
treated as a precedent, since it has not given any reason
for holding that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects, and since the
afores~id decision was given on a concession. [Paras 45]
[1012 E,F]
G
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172;
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.
"1
2003 (7) SCC 197; State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
AIR 1968 SC 647; Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors. 1987 (1) SCC 213; BhavnagarUniversityvs. Palitana
H Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd 2003 (2) SC 11.1; Bharat Petroleum Car-
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 997
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
I"'
poration Ltd. and Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani and Anr. AIR 2004
A
SC 4778; Or. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor,
Sambhalpur University 2001 (8) SCC 532 - referred to.
4. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside. [Para 46] B
[1012 G]
-,
Case Law Reference
AIR 1959 SC 198
Referred to.
Para 14
AIR 1981 SC 1744
Referred to.
Para 15
AIR 2000 SC 135
Referred to.
Para 16
c
AIR 1975 SC 2216
Referred to.
Para 16
1892 ILR 14 All 67
Referred to.
Para 18
2001 (8) sec 546
Referred to.
Para 29
AIR 1965 SC 491
Referred to.
Para 29
D
,,
JT 1991 (4) SC 75
Referred to.
Para 30
""
JT 1992 (1) SC 583
Referred to.
Para 30
AIR 1986 SC 1448
Referred to.
Para 30
2004 (6) sec 661
Referred to.
Para 30
E
(2000) 3 sec 59
Referred to.
Para 30
1977 (1) sec 219
Referred to.
Para 30
2001 (8) sec 427
Referred to.
Para 30
1999 (9) sec 573
Referred to.
Para 30
F
>
1999 (6) sec 112
Referred to.
Para 39
2003 (7) sec 191
Referred to.
Para 40
AIR 1968 SC 647
Referred to.
Para 41
1987 (1) sec 213
Referred to.
Para 42
G
2003 (2) SC 111
Referred to.
Para 43
AIR 2004 SC 4778
Referred to.
Para 44
.,..
2001 (8) sec 532
Referred to.
Para 45
Per Kabir, J (Concurring):
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
..
I
>if
A
1.1 The recruitment Rules followed by the University
I
clearly indicates that in order to be appointed as Lecturer
',.
in a particular discipline a candidate must have a postgraduate deg tee in the relevant S':Jbject. On the other hand,
for appointment to the post of Reader such a condition
B has not been specified. In fact, in Regulation 2 it has been
generally indicated that no person shall be appointed to
"(
a teaching post in the University or in any institution, ineluding constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under the UGC Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to be a
,..__
c University under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if
he/she does not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject. [Para 7] [1014 E-G]
1.2 The omission in the Regulations cannot be said
to be unintentional or a case of casus omissus. The exD pression 'appropriate subject' was intended to cover the
post of Reader and once the expert bodies had indicated
that the appellant who held a post-graduate degree in
-;--
Political Science was eligible to be appointed to the post
of Reader in Public Administration and had been rightly
E appointed to such post, it is normally not for the Courts
,:
to question such opinion, unless it has specialised know!-
edge of the subject. [Para 8] [1014, H, 1015, A]
1.3 In deciding Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case, this
Court did not have the benefit of the views of the UniverF sity and the University Grants Commission and the conclusion was arrived at on the basis of a personal under-
'
standing of Public Administration and Political Science.
The decision does not reflect the aforesaid position and
also does not indicate the reason why and on what basis
G such a decision holding Public Administration and Political Science t o be two distinct disciplines had been arrived at. [Paras 5 and 9] [1014 C-0; 1015 B]
Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambhalpur
1
University 2001 (8) SCC 532 - distinguished.
...
H
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 999
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
Case Law Reference
2001 (8) SCC 532
Distinguished.
Para 5
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4908
of 2008
A
From the Judgment and final Order dated 21/9/2006 of 8
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
No. 6642 of 2005
P.S. Patwalia, Rupansh Purit, Harikesh Singh and Kamal
Mohan Gupta for the Appellant.
c
Nidhesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, Deepak Goel, S. Janani,
Amitesh Kumar, Gopal Singh, Jasbir Singh Malik, R.K. Tripathi,
Rahul Tyagi, K.P. Singh and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court of Punjab E
and Haryana in CWP No. 6642 of 2005.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. The short question in this appeal is whether the appellant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment
F
to the post of Reader in Public Ad ministration in Chaudhary Devi
Lal University, Sirsa.
5. The respondent-university issued an advertisement for
direct recruitment for various posts, including the post of Reader G
in Public Administration. The appellant herein, claiming to be
fully eligible and qualified for the post of Reader in Public Administration, applied for the aforementioned post on the prescribed format. A Selection Committee interviewed the appellant on 18.7.2004 as per the call letter dated 8.7.2004. The apH
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
~. ·-
A
pellant was selected as Reader and he joined as such on
.
4.4.200.5.
I
l6. Respondent No. 2 herein, Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who
was a Lecturer in PublicAdministration had also applied forthe
i
post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the-appel-
'
B
lant was selected. Hence, respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition
I"
~
in the Punjab & Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642/2005
in which he alleged that the appellant herein, Dr. Rajbir Singh
Dalal, did not po_ssess the requisite qualification for the post of
Reader in Public Administration. It was alleged in the writ petic tion that the appellant was an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science and not in Public Administration. Hence, it was alleged
that the appellant was not eligible for being selected and ap1'--
pointed as Reader in Public Administration.
)
7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the
D
University, it was stated that Public Administration is one of the
I
branches of Political Science, and hence the appellant herein
~ F
was rightly selected by the Selection Committee consisting of
eminent experts after evaluating .his academic qualifications.
E
8. In the counter affidavit filed.by the app~llant herein before the High Court. it was admitted that the appellant had his
qualification from the discipline of Political Science, but it was
asserted that he was subjected to a process of selection be-
~
fore an expert committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor of
L
F
the University, Dr. L. Goyal, Professor of Public Administration,
Punjab University and Dr. R.K. Tiwari, a Professor in Indian In-
-4._
stitute of Public Administration, New Delhi.
1--
9. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated·
,._
ii
21.9.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside th_e selection
G and appointment of the appellant. The High Court relied on the
decision of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. ChanF
eel/or, Sambalpur University (2001) 8 SCC 532 .in which it was
observed that the subjects of Public Administration and Politi1
cal Science are distinct and separate and a person possessH
ing the academic qualification in the discipline of Political Sci-
DR RAJ BIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAU DHAR I DEVI LAL 1001
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
ence could not be appointed in the discipline of Public AdminA
istration. The High Court also relied on Regulation 2 of the UGC
Regulations which states as under :
"2. Qualification:
No persons shall be appointed to a teaching post in university
B
or in any institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges
recognized under clause (f) of section 2 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to
be a university under section 3 of the said Act in a subject if
he/she does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications
for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Annexure.
C
Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications
can only be made by the University Grants Commission in a
particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or
enough number of candidates are not available with NET 0
qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if
allowed, would be given based on sound qualification and
would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject
for the specified period. No individual applications would be
entertained).
E
Provided further that these regulations shall not be
applicable to such cases where selections of the
candidates having had the then requisite minimum
qualification as were existing at that time through
duly constituted Selection Committee for making
appointments to the teaching posts have been made
F
prior to the enforcement of these regulations.
1. 3. 2. Reader
Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent
published work. In addition to these, candidates when join G
from outside the university system, shall also possess at
least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grad~ of B in the 7
point scale with latter grades, 0, A, B, C, D, E and Fat the
Master's degree level.
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
>=
~ ,
A
Five years of experience of teaching and/or research
excluding the period spent for obtaining the research
degrees and has made one mark in the areas of
l
scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, ·
contribution to educational innovation, design of new
·' "
B
courses and curricula.
r
~
1.3.3. Lecturer
Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an
'
equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades,
c
0, A, B, D, D, E' and F at the Master's degree level, in the
'
relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent
~
degree from a foreign university.
'
I
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should
have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted
D
by the UGC, CSIR, or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Note:- Net shall remain the compulsory requirement for
~ f
appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph. D.
degree. However, the candidate who have completed M. Phil.
.,
Degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned
E
subject up to 31 51 December, 1993 are exempted from
;I=.
appearing in the NET examination."
t
10. The High Court was of the view that a person is not
.......
qualified for appointment as Reader unless he has qualificaj
tion in the appropriate subject. The High Court was also of the
~
F
viewthat since the appellant had a qualification in the discipline
-.\
of Political Science he could not be appointed. in the discipline
of Public Administration. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed
by the appellant in this Court.
(__
11. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for 'the apk
G pellant submitted that in the UGC Regulation for the post of LeeI
turer the requirement was a Master's degree in the relevant·
. ..,
subject, whereas the expression 'in the relevant subject' is not
mentioned in the gualifications for the post of Reader. Hence,
he submitted that it was notflecessary for the appellant to have
H a Master's degree in the relevant subject for appointment to the
~
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1003
~
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
post of Reader. We regret we cannot agree. In our opinion, the A
words 'in the relevant subject' has to be read into the qualification for the post of Reader also.
12. To take a contrary view would lead to a strange situ ation as that would mean that a person who has an M.A. degree
B
..,...
in Music or History, is qualified to be appointed as Reader in
Political Science.
13. No doubt, the ordinary principle of interpretation is that
words should neither be added nor deleted from a statutory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the rule where c
the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a
strict construction which leads to absurdity or deprives certain
existing words of all meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply the words (vide Principles of Statutory lnterpreD
tation by Justice G.P. Singh, 91h edn. Pp 71-76) .
.,..
14. Thus, in Siraj-ul-Haq vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf,
UP AIR 1959 SC 198, the Supreme Court interpreted the
words 'any person interested in a Waqf' in section 5(2) of the
U.P. Muslims Waqfs Act, 1936 as meaning 'any person interE
ested in what is held to be a waqf'.
15. Similarly, in State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohammad
AIR 1981SC1744, while construing section 4(1) of the Kerala
Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 the Supreme Court interpreted the words 'any debt due before the commencement of F
>
this Act to any banking company' as meaning 'any debt due at
and before the commencement of this Act'.
16. Similarly, in Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs. Ranip
Nagarpalika AIR 2000 SC 135, the Supreme Court interpreted G
the words 'Grog Minerals' to mean 'Grog & Minerals'. In Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs. T R.
~
Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216, the Supreme Court interpreted
·~ the words 'any party to an arbitration agreement' occurring in
section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to mean 'a person H
1004.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R
A
who is alleged to be a party to an arbitration agreement'.
17. We may also consider the matter from our traditional
principles of interpretation known as the 'Mimansa Rules of
Interpretation'.
B
18. It is deeply regrettable that in our Courts of law lawyers
quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa
Principles of interpretation. Most lawyers would not have even
heard of their existence. Today our so-called educated people
are largely ignorant about the great intellectual achievements
c of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury which they have
bequeathed us. The Mimansa Principles of interpretation is part
of that great intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that
apart from the reference to these principles in the judgment of
Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court,
D in Beni Prasad v. Hardai Bibi, 1892 ILR 14 All 67 (FB), over a
hundred years ago and in son:ie judgments of one of us (M.
Katju, J.) there has been almost no utilization of these principles
even in our own country. Many of the Mimansa Principles are
rational and scientific and can be utilized in the legal field (see
E
in this connection K.L. Sarkar's 'Mimansa Rules of lnterpretation' which is a collection of Tagore Law Lectures delivered in
1905 containing the best exposition of these principles in English; Most other books on Mimansa are in Sanskrit).
19. The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, as laid down
F
by Jaimini around the 5th century B.C. in his sutras and as explained by Sabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, Mandan Mishra,
Shalignath, Parthasarathy Mishra, Apadeva, Shree Bhat
Shankar, etc. were regularly used by our renowned jurists like
Vijneshwara (author of Mitakshara), Jimutvahana (author of
G · Dayabhaga), Nanda Pandit (author of Dattaka Mimansa), etc.
whenever there they found any conflict between the various
Smritis, e.g., Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti, or ambiguity,
ellipse or absurdity in any Smriti. Thus, the Mimansa principles
were our traditional system of interpretation of legal texts. AlH though originally they were created for interpreting religious texts
,.,.
..,,
.....
\-
.
I
..--
~
,
•
I
I
DR RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1005
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
'+-
pertaining to the Yagya (sacrifice), they were so rational and
A
logical that gradually they came to be utilized in law, philosophy,
grammar, etc., that is, they became of universal application. Thus,
Shankaracharya has used the Mimansa Adhikaranas (principles) in his bhashya on the Vedanta sutras.
20. The Mimansa principles were regularly used by our B
"''
great jurists for interpreting legal texts (see also in this connection P. V. Kane's' History of the Dharmashastra', Vol. V, Pt." 11,
Ch. XXIX and Ch. XXX, pp. 1282-1351).
21. In Mimansa, casus omissus is known as adhyahara. c
The adhyahara principle permits us to add words to a legal text.
However, the superiority of the Mimansa Principles over
Maxwell's Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that
Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention
the sub-c~tegories coming under the general category of caD
sus omissus. In the Mimansa system, on the other hand, the
'>"
gener~I category of adhyahara has under it several sub-categories, e.g., anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. Since in this
case we are concerned with the' anusanga principle, we may
explain it in some detail.
E
22. The anusanga principle (or elliptical extension) states
that an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also
for a neighbouring clause, and it is only for economy that it is
only mentioned in the former (see Jaimini 2, 2, 16). The anusanga
principle has a further sub-categorization. If a clause which ocF
)
curs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous
sentence it is a case of Tadapakarsha, but when it is vice-versa
it is a case of Tadutkarsha.
23. The Anusanga principle of Mimansa was used by
Jimutvahana in the Dayabhaga. Jimutvahana found that there G
is a text of Manu which states:
~ ...
"Of a woman married according to the Brahma, Daiva,
Arsha, Gandharva and Prajapartya form, the property shall
go to her husband if she dies without issue. But her H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
property, given to her on her marriage in the form called
Asura, Rakshasa and Paisacha; on her death without
issue shall become the property of her parents."
24. It can be seen that in the second sentence the word
'property' is qualified by the words 'given to her on her marB riage', whereas in the first sentence there is no such qualifica-
,r'
tion. Jimutvahana, using the anusanga principle of Mimansa,
said that the words "given to her on her marriage" should also
be inserted in the first sentence after the word "property", and
hence there also the word 'property' must be interpreted in a
C qualified sense.
---........ - -
25. In the Mitakshara also the anusanga principle of
Mimansa has been used. Yajnavalkya II. 135-136 lays down the
order of succession to the wealth of a person dying sonless.
0
Yajnavalkya 11.137 deals with succession to property of a forest
hermit, an ascetic, or a perpetual Vedic student. The Mitakshara
then holds that Yajnavalkya 11. 138 'samaristinastu samaristi' is
"'(_
to be construed as an exception to Yajnavalkya 11. 135, 136 and
understands that the words 'of one dying without having a son'
(grand son or great grand son) are to be supplied before
E Yajnavalkya II. 138 from II. 136, i.e., there is to be anusanga of
the word 'svaryatasya-putrasya'.
26. In our opinion, in the present case, the Anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilized and the expression 'relevant
F
subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for the post
of Reader after the words "at the Master's degree level". Hence,
·"
we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect.
27. However, we agree with Mr.Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public AdG ministration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to
sit in appeal ove'r the opinion of the experts.
28. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel has pointed out that for ·7<.;
the posts of Reader and Lecturer in Public Administration and
H Political Science, a large number of appointments have been
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARl-.DEVI LAL 1007
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
i'
made in the respondent-university as well as in the higher eduA
cation department of Haryana treating Political Science and
Public Administration as one discipline. There are a large number of persons who have an M.A. & Ph.D. degrees in Political
Science and are working as teachers in Public,Administration
department, and vice versa.
B
29. In Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 546, following its earlier decision in the Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore vs. C.O.
Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 this Court observed that "normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of c
academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the
problems they face than the courts generally are".
30. A similar view has been expressed in several decisions of this Court e.g. Or. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain JT D
1991 (4) SC 75 (para 9), Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean,
B. J. Medical College& Ors. JT 1992(1) SC 583 (para 8),
..,.,
Rajender Prasad Mathur vs . . Karnataka University & Anr. AIR
1986 SC 1448 (para 7) = 1986 Supp. SCC 740 (para 7), P.M.
Bhargava & Ors. vs. U. G C. & Anr. 2004 (6) SCC 661 (Para E
13), Chairman, J&K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed
Malik & Ors (2000) 3 SCC 59, Varanaseya Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya & Anr. vs. Or. Rajkishore Tripathi & Anr.
( 1977) 1 SCC 279 (para 12), Medical Council of India vs.
Sarang & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 (para 6), Bhagwan Singh &
Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 (para 6).
F
>
31. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from
the UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer
in Political Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter dated G
5.3.1992 to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that
the subject of Political Science and Public Administration are
inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who pos-
....
sesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible as
Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Thus, this is the H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
view of the UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and
the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a
contrary view.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed
out that a large number of universities in this country have a
8
single department for both the subjects of Political Science and
Public Administration, and this also demonstrates that the subjects Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and inter-related. Political Science is the rT)other
c
subject and Public Administration is the offshoot of the same.
33. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is
not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of
the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Public Administration are inter-related and inter-changeable subD jects, and hence a candidate who possesses Master's degree
in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in
Political Science and vice-versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the inter-changeable/inter-related subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/
Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and
E universities in the State.
34. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- university before the High Court, it has been specifically stated therein that Public Administration is one of the
F
branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected
by a selection committee consisting of eminent experts after
evaluating his qualifications and work.
35. As regards the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda
vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University (supra), we have care-"
G fully perused the same. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment it
H
has been observed:
"ThOL•gh the Department concerned for which the appointment
is to be made is that of 'Political Science and Public
Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned,
j:::
I
DR. RAJ BIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1009
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
..,
is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration
A
and subject-matterwise they are different and not one and the
same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in
Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and
separate and on selection the appellant could not have been
appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration."
B
36. A perusal of the above passage shows that the observation that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects was apparently given on a concession, because what has been stated therein is that "it is not in
controversy" that the post of Lecturer in Public Administration and c
Political Science are distinct and separate. The use of the words
'it is not in controversy' shows that a concession was made on
the point by learned counsel for the respondent in that case. Hence
the observation cannot be regarded as a precedent.
37. Moreover, no reasoning has been given in the aforeD
said passage (quoted above) as to why it has been held that
Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and
separate subjects.
38. The decision of a Court is a precedent if it lays down E
some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any principle of law
and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.
39. In State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC
172, a Constitution Bench of this Court observed (vide para F
'
43) that a decision is an authority for what it decides (i.e. the
principle of law it lays down), and not that everything said therein
constitutes a precedent.
40. In Divisional C.'mtrofler, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty
G
and Another (2003) 7 SCC 197 (vide para 23), this Court observed that the only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided.
~-
\,
41. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa vs.
Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (AIR 1968 SC 647 vide para 13):-
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
~
A
"A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.
+
What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every
observation found therein nor what logically follows from the
various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl
of Halsbury, LC said in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495:
B
"Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC
1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations
y
of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to
repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment
must be read as applicable to the pa.rticular facts proved, or
,-
c
assumed to be proved, since the.generality of the expressions
which may be found there are not intended to be expositions
of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular
r
facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.
The other is that a case is only an authority for what it _actually
decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition
D
that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code,
whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not
~
always logical at all."
E
(Emphasis supplied)
42. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & others
(1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide para 18) this Court observed:-
"The ratio of any decision must be understood in the
background of the facts of that case. It has been said long.
F
time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually
decides, and not what logically follows from it."
~
43. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt.
Ltd (2003) 2 SC 111 (vide para 59), this Court observed:-
G
"It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional
facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential
value of a decision."
(Emphasis supplied)
. ,.....
H
44. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & an-
-+
)
DR RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1011
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARK.AN DEY KAT JU, J]
other vs. N.R. Vairamani & another (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a
decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same Judgment this Court also observed:
/
"Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions
of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These
observations must be read in the context in which they appear
to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be
construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and
provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to
embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant
to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do
not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their
_words are not to be interpreted as statutes.
In London Graving dock co. Ltd. vs. Horton (1951 AC 737 at
p. 761 ), Lord Mac Dermot observed:
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by
treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they
were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules
of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract
from the great weight to be given to the language actually
used by that most distinguished judge."
In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER
294) Lord Reid said, "LordAtkin's speech .... is not to be
treated as if it was a statute definition it will require
qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971)1
WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe ·
even a reserved judgment of Russell L. J. as if it were an
Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v.