# H.S. VANKANI AND ORS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS - **Citation:** [2010] 3 S.C.R. 485 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2010-03-16 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010 - **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari, K.S. Radhakrishnan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/h-s-vankani-and-ors-v-state-of-gujarat-and-ors-26762 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote SERVICE LAW: A B Seniority ~ HELD: Is a civil right which has an important . c and vital role to play in one's service career and is also significant for good and sound administration - It is reiterated · that seniority once settled, should not be unsettled - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment D Examination) Rules 1974. RANGERS (SUBORDINATE FOREST SERVICE) RE<;RUITMENT RULES, 1969 - rr. 7, 10, 13 and 141 RANGERS (SUB ORD/NA TE FOREST SERVICE RECRUITMENT EXAM/NATION) RULES 1974 - rr. 7, 8 (as E amended in 1979), 18(as amended in 1983), 21 and 22: Range Forest Officers in State of Gujarat - Seniority of non-graduates (1979-81 batch) and graduates (1980-81 batch) - HELD: Government had rightly taken the decision F deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training course - Seniority of both the batches had been rightly settled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 placing graduates (1980-81batch) above non-graduates -G (1979-81 batch) and the seniority so redetermined had attained finality, but, the Government committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993 - There is no illegality in the judgment of the High court in 485 H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch as had been determined as early as on 12. 10. 1982 - Interpretation of statutes. B INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Strict interpretation - HELD: Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results - In the instant case, strict interpretation of r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974 C Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have . resulted in absurd results - The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with r.10 of 1969 D Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches has been rightly pettled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 197 4- Maxim 'ut res E magis valeat quam pereat'. Range Forest Officers in the State of Gujarat were selected under two different sets of Rules, namely, Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) ~ecruitment Rules, 1969 and Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service F Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974. Earlier, the educational qualification for the post under both the Rules was Intermediate pass and the selected candidates were deputed to a two year training course in Forest Rangers Colleges. Their seniority was determined on the basis of G the marks obtained in the final examination in the Forest Rangers College. With the amendment in r.8(1) of the 1974 Rules in 1979, educational qualification was substituted to graduation and further in the year 1983 two year training course provided in r.18 of 1974 Rules was H H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 487 AND ORS. reduced to one year. The graduate candidates (1980-81 A batch), the respondents, were deputed to one year training course which they completed in February 1981 and they were appointed as Range Forest Officers in March 1981; whereas the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), the appellants, though selected earlier than the B respondents, completed their two year training course after the graduates of 1980-81 batch had been appointed, and, as such, they were appointed Range Forest Officers later. When the issue of seniority was raised by the appellants, the Government, by its communication dated c 12.10.1982 held that graduates (1980-81 batch) would rank senior to the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), and the gradation ## Text _Characters 0–39,945 of 49,243. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._ [2010] 3 S.C.R. 485 H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010) MARCH 16, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Seniority ~ HELD: Is a civil right which has an important . c and vital role to play in one's service career and is also significant for good and sound administration - It is reiterated · that seniority once settled, should not be unsettled - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment D Examination) Rules 1974. RANGERS (SUBORDINATE FOREST SERVICE) RE<;RUITMENT RULES, 1969 - rr. 7, 10, 13 and 141 RANGERS (SUB ORD/NA TE FOREST SERVICE RECRUITMENT EXAM/NATION) RULES 1974 - rr. 7, 8 (as E amended in 1979), 18(as amended in 1983), 21 and 22: Range Forest Officers in State of Gujarat - Seniority of non-graduates (1979-81 batch) and graduates (1980-81 batch) - HELD: Government had rightly taken the decision F deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training course - Seniority of both the batches had been rightly settled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 placing graduates (1980-81batch) above non-graduates -G (1979-81 batch) and the seniority so redetermined had attained finality, but, the Government committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993 - There is no illegality in the judgment of the High court in 485 H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch as had been determined as early as on 12. 10. 1982 - Interpretation of statutes. B INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Strict interpretation - HELD: Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results - In the instant case, strict interpretation of r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974 C Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have . resulted in absurd results - The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with r.10 of 1969 D Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches has been rightly pettled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 197 4- Maxim 'ut res E magis valeat quam pereat'. Range Forest Officers in the State of Gujarat were selected under two different sets of Rules, namely, Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) ~ecruitment Rules, 1969 and Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service F Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974. Earlier, the educational qualification for the post under both the Rules was Intermediate pass and the selected candidates were deputed to a two year training course in Forest Rangers Colleges. Their seniority was determined on the basis of G the marks obtained in the final examination in the Forest Rangers College. With the amendment in r.8(1) of the 1974 Rules in 1979, educational qualification was substituted to graduation and further in the year 1983 two year training course provided in r.18 of 1974 Rules was H H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 487 AND ORS. reduced to one year. The graduate candidates (1980-81 A batch), the respondents, were deputed to one year training course which they completed in February 1981 and they were appointed as Range Forest Officers in March 1981; whereas the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), the appellants, though selected earlier than the B respondents, completed their two year training course after the graduates of 1980-81 batch had been appointed, and, as such, they were appointed Range Forest Officers later. When the issue of seniority was raised by the appellants, the Government, by its communication dated c 12.10.1982 held that graduates (1980-81 batch) would rank senior to the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), and the gradation list was published accordingly in the year 1983. This position was again reiterated by the Government by its communication dated 5.3.1987. In the provisional D gradation list published in the year 1989 also the respondents were shown above the appellants. However, the Government in its proceedings dated 29.9.1993 held that non-graduates (19-79-81 batch) would rank senior to graduates (1980-81 batch). The writ petition of the respondents was dismissed by the single Judge, but the E Division Bench ofthe High Court allowed their LP.A. Aggrieved, the non-graduates of the 1979-81 batch filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Seniority once settled is decisive'in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and G assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. Courts have been r,epeating the ratio that the seniority once sett~ed, shall not H < 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 3 S.C.R. A be unsettled. In the instant case, the government had rightly settled the seniority by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 and the gradation lists were also rightly published, but by its proceedings dated 29.9.1993, the Government committed a grave error in unsettling the B inter se seniority of the graduates and non- graduates which had been settled as early as in the year 1982. (Para 23 and 25] (505-B; 505-C-E] Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others 2007 c (2) SCR 432 = (2007) 14 sec 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana 1989 (3) SCR 1079 = (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) SCR 757 =. (2003) 5 sec 604, relied on. G.P. Doval vs. Chief Secretary Government of U.P. 1985 D (1) SCR 70 =(1984) 4 SCC 329; Prabhakar and Others vs. State of.Maharashtra And Others, 1976 (3) SCR 315 = (1976) 2 SCC 890, and G: Deendayalan vs. Union of India & Ors 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 377 = (1997) 2 SCC 638; R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC 641', held E inapplicable. 1.2. When the rules were framed, perhaps only two Government run colleges, namely, the ·Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun, and the Southern Forest Rangers College Coimbatore, were conducting the F training courses, the duration of Which was two years and the qualification prescribed was pass in intermediate examination. Later those colleges changed their course duration to an integrated one year course. Necessary amendments, however, were not carried out in r.10 of G Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 or r.18 of Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974 pointing out in which College the candidates with intermediate 'qualification had to undergo training. Before 1980-81 H H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 489 AND ORS. batch was selected, r. 8 of the 1974 Rules was amended A and the minimum educational qualification was fixed as graduation. In the circumstances, the Government took a conscious decision that non-graduates of 1979-81 batch would undergo two year training course, and the graduates of 1980-81 batch would undergo the one year B training course since candidates with lesser qualification required thorough training compared to the candidates with higher qualification. Such a decision was taken, evidently due to the reason that strict interpretation of r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules was c unworkable. Later, by Notification dated 25th November, 1983, in r.18 of 1974 Rules, the period of two years for training was substituted as one year, but necessary amendments are yet to be carried out in r.10 of the 1969 Rules. [Para 23, 26] [506-D-H; 507-A-C] · 1.3. Due to the basic difference in the educational qualification between the 1979-81 and 1980-81 batches, D the Government took a conscious decision that it was not proper to unsettle the settled seniority even if there was delay in the appointment of non-graduates. This position E was recognized in all the gradation lists published till 1.1.1989. Neither the Government order dated 12.10.1982 nor the gradation lists were challenged before any forum . which had attained finality. [Para 23] [504-A-C] F 1.4. The note dated 29.9.1993 stating that the candidates of 1979-81 batch should be placed above the candidates of 1980-81 batch was 'based on a misinterpretation of r.14 of the 1969 Rules. Rule 14 of the 1969 Rules determines the inter-se seniority of the G candidates of a particular batch and does not determine the inter-stt seniority between two batches, whose educational qualification, years of training and the date of joining, etc. differ. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and r. 22 of the 1974 Rules also further re-emphasise that fact. Both H 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A the groups are governed by these rules in the matter of their intra seniority. The note dated 29.09.1993 is, therefore, contrary to r.14 of 1969 Rules and r.22 of the 197 4 Rules. [Para 23] [504-E-G] 8 Praful/a Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra 1993 (1) SCR 241=1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181; Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 916 = (2004) 3 SCC 723; Bhey Ram Sharma vs. Haryana S.E.B., 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 219 = 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276; K.R. Mudga/ vs. R.P. C Singh 1986 (3) SCR 993 = (1986) 4 SCC 531, referred to / 2. It is a well known rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed so as to ,give them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam D pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void). The principle also means that if the obvious intention of the statute gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the court must do its best to find ways of overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid absurd E results. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a construction should not be put on a statutory provision which would lead to manifest absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience or anomaly. The courts have to avoid a F construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situatioA is unlikely to have been envisaged by the rule making authority, which also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd G results. There is, therefore, no illegality in the judgment of the. High court in quashing the order dated 29th September, 1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 197981 batch. [Para 27, 32 and 33] [507-F-H; 508-A; 509-C-D; H 509-F] H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 491 AND ORS. Andhra Bank v. 8. Satyanarayana 2004 (2) SCR 304 = A (2004) 2 SCC, 657; tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of Assam & Ors. 1989 (2) SCR 544 = (1989) 3 SCC, 709; Madhav Rao, Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India 1971 (3) SCR 9 = (1971) 1 SCC 85; Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal 1997(4) Suppl. SCR 327 = (1997) 8 SCC 89, Paradise B Printers v. Union .Territory of Chandigarh 1988 (2) SCR 157 = (1988) 1 sec 440, referred to. R. (on the application of Edition First Power Ltd.) v. Central Valuation Officer and another (2003) UKHL 20(2003) C 4 ALL ER 209, referred to; Case Law Reference: para 25 2007 (2) SCR 432 1989 (3) SCR 1079 relied on relied on relied on para 25 . D para 25 · 2003 (2) SCR 757 1985 (1) SCR 1976 (3) SCR. 315 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 377 1993 (1) SCR 241 held inapplicable para 21 held inapplicable para 21 held inapplicable para 21 referred to para 23 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 916 referred to 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 219 referred to 1986 (3) SCR 993 referred to (2003) UKHL 20 (2003) 4 ALL ER 209 referred to 2004 (2) SCR 304 referred to 1989 (2) SCR referred to 1971 (3) SCR 9 referred to para 23 para 23 para 23 ·para 28 para 29 para 30 para 31 E F G H ' 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 327 referred to para 31 B 1988 (2) SCR 157 referred to para 31 CIVIL APPELLATE JURlso&.~tON : Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010. '· ·--._ · 0 From the Judgment & Order dated 13.6.2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1634 of 1999. D.A. Dave, Sanjoy Ghose, Anitha Shenoy, Yashovardhan C for the Appellants. . ·~·:· Hemanitka Wahi, Somanath Padhan, D.N .. Ray, P.O. Sharma Huzefa Ahmadi, Chetan Pandya, Pradhuman Gohil, Vikash Singh, S. Hari Haran, Taruna Singh, Milind Kumar for D the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted . •. E 2. The controversy in this case is with regard to the interse seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range Forest Officers viz., 1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 198081 batch (graduates) of the Subordinate Forest Services of the State of Gujarat and their further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 3. The recruitment to the posts of Rangers in the Subordinate Forest Services is governed by the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (in short '1969 Rules') which was framed by the Government of Gujarat G in exercise of its powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Appointment to the post of Rangers is made either by way of promotion from the post of .. Forester or by direct selection. Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules stipulated that a candidate to be eligible for appointment by .. ;"!"- •'.. ....., H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 493 AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] direct selection should possess a minimum educational A qualification of intermediate examination of any recognized university or its equivalent examination comprising of subjects 'Specified therein. Rule 7 lays down that the candidates have to undergo· a selection process consisting of a written test and interview. Rule 10 states that the. finally selected candidates B have to undergo the Rangers course which reads as follows:- "The candidate finally selected will be required to undergo training for the Rangers Course at the Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun or Southern Forest c Rangers College, Coimbatore for a period of two years: 4. Rule 11 says that the State Government would bear the costs for the training. and that during the period of training the candidate shall receive stipend, emoluments and other allowances if any, as fixed by the Government from time to time. D Rule 13 deals with appointment, which reads as follows:- "Onsuccessful completion of the Training Course from the Ranger's College, the cendidate shall be appointed as a Ranger if he passes with higher standard certificate and E .as a Forester if he passes with lower standard certificate." 5. Rule 14 deals with seniority which states that the seniority of Rangers shall be governed by the respective ranks · in the final examination, irrespective of the date of joining the service. F .. 6. The Government of Gujarat, in exercise of its powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Ranger (Subordinate 'Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974 (in short '1974 Rules). G Rufe 7 deals with the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to the post of Rangers. Rule 8 stipulated that a candidate should possess the minimum educational qualification of intermediate examina.tion from a recognised university in any of the subjects mentioned therein for admission to the competition examination H ~f; .. . 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A for recruitment to the post of Rangers. The examination conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('GPSC' in short) followed by a viva-voce and personality test. GPSC has to publish in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette the names of the candidates who qualify for the posts in the serial orders based · B on the total marks obtained by the candidates and they are required to undergo practical training in the forest for a period of eight weeks. Rule 18 required the candidates to undergo training for the Rangers Course at the Northern Forest Range College, Dehradun, or Southern Forest College, Coimbatore . c for a period of two years and that the ~overnment would bear the cost Rule 18 reads as follows:- D Rule-18:- The candidate shall during the period of. practical training, receive stipend and traveling allowances as the Government may fix from time to time: They shall also be required to undergo training for the Rangers · Course at the Northern Forest College, Dehradun or southern Forest College, Coimbatore for a period of two . years." E · 7. Rule 21 states that on successful completion of the training course from the Rangers College, the candidate shall · be appointed as a Ranger if he passes with higher standard certificate and as a Forester, if he passes with lower standard certificate. Rule 22 deals with.seniority of Rangers which says F that the seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their respective qmks in the final examination at the Rangers College irrespective of the date of joining the service. B. 1974 .Rules were later amended by the Government of Gujarat invoking the powers conferred under which the proviso G to Article 309 of the Constitution vide Rangers (Subordinate forest Service Recruitment Examination (Amendment Rules) 1979, (in short '1979 Rules):Clause 1 of Rule 8 was substituted by stating that a candidate must possess a bachelor's degree in Science or Agriculture of any university recognized by the H Government of Gujarat instead of the passing the intermediate H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 495 AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) examination so as to be eligible for writing the competitive A examination conducted by the GPSC for recruitment to the post of Rangers. Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules was also later amended by the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) examination Rules, 1983 (in short '1983 Rules) on 25th November, 1983, substituting the period of two years as one year training. B 9. The Government of India had vide its letter No.3-42/77FRY-1 dated 29th May, 1979 announced the duration of the courses at various central Rangers Colleges and State Forest Rangers Colleges. Northern Forest Rangers College, Dehradun, U.P., Central Forest Rangers College, Chandrapur, C Maharashtra and Southern Forest Rangers College, Coimbatore etc. had since then, discontinued its two years course to one year integrated course, while Forest Rangers College, Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh and Eastern Forest Rangers College Furseong, West Bengal Rangers College, D Rajpipla, SFS. College Burnihat, Meghalaya, etc. continued with course of two years duration. Above facts would indicate that different colleges followed their own course structures, curriculum and time schedule for successful completion of training imparted in their respective colleges. E 10. Appellants herein (non-graduates) were selected to the post of Ranger Forest O"fficer by the GPSC in accordance with the 1969 and 1974 Rules and were deputed for training at the Rangers College Rajpipla, where the training course was of two years duration and other candidates of the same batch were sent for training to some other college where also the training course was of two years duration. In short all the non-graduates F of 1979-81 batch were deputed for training to the colleges conducting courses of two years duration since the colleges G mentioned in the rules had done away with the courses of two years duration to one year integrated course. Appellants completed the training course, the duration of which was two years in the month of March, 1981 and were appointed as Rangers in the Subordinate Service in the month of April, 1981. H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A 11. The R~spondents herein (graduates) selected by the GPSC in_ the year 1979 were sel'")t for training at CFRC, Chandrapur, where the course duration was of one year. After successfully completing the course in February, 1981 they were appointed to the post of Forest Rangers in the month of B March, 1981. Non graduates though selected earlier had to undergo two years training and hence could join service only . after the graduates joined service, since they had undergone the integrated course of the duration of which was one year. 12. The controversy in this case as we have indicated is C with regard·to the inter-se seniority betwee.n the graduates of'' (1980-81 batch) who had successfully completed the training course earlier, and the non-graduates of (1979-81 batch) who had also successfully completed the course later for the post of Forest Rangers and also their further pro.motion to the post · D of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Rule 13 of 1969 Rules stipulates that on successful completion of the training course from the Rangers College, a candidate shall be appointed as Ranger if he passes the higher standard certificate. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of 1974 Rules state that the seniority . E of Rangers shall be governed by their respective ranks in the final examination irrespective of the dates of joining the service. Both the non-graduates of 1979-81 batch as well as the graduates of 1980-81 batch ar~ governed by the above • F mentioned Rules. with regard to their inter-se seniority. (:· 13. The non-graduates (1979-80 batch) who had to undergo training for two years at Gujarat Forest Rangers' College, RajP.ipla, submitted representation in February 1981 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Vadodara claiming seniority G over (1980-81 batch) ctontending that they could join service late not due to their fault, but due to the fact that they had to undergo two years training cotlfse while the candidates of 1980-81 batch ··were permitted to take an integrated Training course the duration of which was one year, with the result that they could join Service earlier than the (1979-81 batch) which, according H H.S. VANl