JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - Vacancy arose against the post of a Lecturer in Military Science in the S.S.V. Degree College, Hapur affiliated to the University of Meerut. The petitioner and the respondent 5 amongst others were candidates for the post. The candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee on Aug. 11, 1981. The Selection Committee drew a panel in which the respondent 5 was placed at position No. I and the petitioner was shown at the No. 2. The petitioner represented that the respondent 5 did not possess the minimum prescribed qualifications and the experience for the appointment. The Vice-Chancellor, however, gave approval on Aug. 20, 1981 and the Management of the College appointed accordingly the respondent No. 5 to the post. A reference was made by the petitioner under S. 68 of the U.P. Universities Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') to the Chancellor who rejected it under the impugned order dated Mar. 27, 1982 observing: "Sri Ram Autar has also questioned the selection and appointment of Sri S.P. Singh on the ground that he was not qualified for the post. Sri Singh, `had ten years' teaching experience of permanent lecturership in Military Studies. He was fully qualified under Statutes 11.13(8) of Meerut University. In view of these facts it cannot be said that Sri S.P. Singh was not qualified for the post." 2. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Chancellor. 3. In accordance with S. 31(1) of the Act, a teacher is appointed by the Management of the College on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consists of the Head of the Management or a member of the Management nominated by him who shall be the Chairman; the Principal of the College and another teacher of the College nominated by the Principal and two Experts to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor vide S. 31(4)(a). No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated College unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor has been obtained under S. 31(11)(a). No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated College unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor has been obtained under S. 31(11)(a). Cl (c) lays down:- "The Vice-Chancellor, if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualifications or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed. shall convey to the Management his disapproval." 4. According to Section 49 the statutes may provide for any matter relating to the University and shall in particular, provide for recruitment (including minimum qualifications and experience) of teachers of affiliated colleges. The First Statutes framed by the State Government under S. 50(1) relating to the various Universities of the State came into force on Aug 1, 1975. These were replaced by the First Statutes of the University of Meerut framed by the State Government with effect from May 1, 1977. These were amended later by the Meerut University (Fifth Amendment) Statutes, 1980 Published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated September 9, 1980. 5. The Statute 11.13(1) of the First Statutes of the University of Meerut, 1977 prescribes the minimum qualifications for the recruitment of a teacher in the Faculty of Arts to which the subject of Military Science pertains as under:- "11. 13(1) In the case of any college affiliated to the University the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts (Except the Department of Music, the Faculty of Commerce and the Faculty of Science), namely: (a) an M. Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Masters level or published, work indicating the capacity of the candidate for independent research work; and the (b) consistently good academic record with at least first or second class Masters degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in a relevant subject." Clause 6 provides : "(6) Where no candidate possessing the qualification prescribed in sub-cl. (a) of cl. (1) or sub-cl. (a) of cl. (a) of cl. (1) or sub-cl. (a) of cl. (2) is available or considered suitable the college on the recommendation of the Selection Committee may appoint a person possessing a consistently good academic record on the condition that he obtains such qualifications within five years of his appointment, failing which he shall not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils the requirements." CL (8) which is material makes provision for exemption in certain situation described as under :- "(8) Where a confirmed teacher of an affiliated college having at least five years teaching experience who fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes or Ordinance of the University at the time of his initial appointment to the post of a Lecturer in that college, is a candidate for the post of a lecturer in any other affiliated college, or is after retrenchment from the college where he served a candidate for the post of lecturer in the same or any other affiliated college, the qualifications laid down in this Statute shall not be insisted upon in this respect." 6. The academic qualifications of the petitioner and the respondent 5 respectively are:- Petitioner:- M. A. (Military Science) 1st Division. B.A. 1st Division. (61.4%) Intermediate II Division. (47.8%) High School II Division. Respondent No. 5:- M.A. (Military Science) III Div. (40.4%) B. A III Div. (41.2%) Intermediate III Div. High School III Div. 7. The respondent 5 was appointed Lecturer of Military Studies with effect from Sept. 1, 1971(1971-72) in the D.A.V. College, Azamgarh affiliated to the Gorakhpur University and he thus has experience of teaching this subject in the College for over five years. The bone of contention between the parties is whether this experience qualifies the respondent S for exemption under Statute 11.13(8) of the Meerut University, quoted above. Obviously, the respondent 5 cannot claim to have consistently good academic record since he secured neither first class, nor second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject. In the case of Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor Allahabad University, 1980 All LJ 571 : AIR 1980 SC 2141 the question arose in regard to the interpretation of expression" First or High Second Class Master's Degree" then appearing in the relevant Statutes. In the case of Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor Allahabad University, 1980 All LJ 571 : AIR 1980 SC 2141 the question arose in regard to the interpretation of expression" First or High Second Class Master's Degree" then appearing in the relevant Statutes. The Supreme Court observed that the mode of determination the meaning of "High Second Class mark" could be to draw a line at mid point and the marks above and below that line would be high and low second class respectively. This has now become unnecessary in view of the amendment in the Statutes we are concerned with on Sept 1, 1980 and since the Selection in the present took place after this amendment had come into force. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri N. C. Rajvanshi assisted by Sri M. D. Singh the learned counsel contended that the respondent 5 is not eligible to the benefit of exemption under cl. (8) of the Statute 11.13. Their argument is that experience gained of teaching in a college affiliated to another University cannot count because cl. (8) envisages experience in a college affiliated to the University of Meerut itself. Sri S.N. Verma learned counsel for the respondent 5 submits on the contrary that the expression 'affiliated College be given a broad interpretation so as not to exclude the teaching experience in any college irrespective of consideration as to which University it is affiliated. 9. The expression `University', according to S. 2(20) of the Act means "an existing University or a new University established after the commencement of this Act under S. 4". We are not concerned here with a new University because the Gorakhpur University was established in 1956 and the Meerut University in 1965 - both prior to the commencement of the Act. "Existing University" is defined in S. 2(8) as meaning the University of Lucknow, Allahabad, Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur or Meerut or the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidalaya, as the case may be. Section 2(2), moreover, specifies that affiliated college means "an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Statutes of that University." The First Statutes of the University of Meerut, 1977 referred above also contain definition clause. Clause 1.03(d) defines `University' as meaning the 'University of Meerut and then there is the usual residuary provision in sub-cl. Clause 1.03(d) defines `University' as meaning the 'University of Meerut and then there is the usual residuary provision in sub-cl. (e) which says that the words and expressions used but not defined in these Statues shall have, unless the context otherwise requires, the meaning assigned to them in the Act. 10. Now on substituting these definition clauses contained in the Act/the Statutes, CL (8) will in so far as relevant reads as follows :- "Where a confirmed teacher of a college affiliated to the University of Meerut having at least five years, teaching experience who fulfilled the qualification prescribed in the Statutes or Ordinances of the University Meerut at the time of his initial appointment to the post of a Lecturer in that College, is a candidate for the post of a lecturer in any other college affiliated to the University of Meerut .... the qualifications laid down in this Statute shall not be insisted upon in this respect." 11. This in our opinion is the plain meaning of cl. (8). The well recognised rule of construction is to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed. The object is to discover the true intention, "but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used" (Maxwell: Interpretation of Statutes, (12th Edition) (P. 28)). The construction of a statute must not so strain the words as to include cases plainly omitted from the dictionary meaning of the language(P. 92 ibid). The cardinal rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament, says Craies on Statute Law (1971) Pp. 64-65, is that "they should be construed according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. If the words of the Statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. The words themselves alone do in such a case best declare the intention of the law giver." The learned Author observes further, "where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature." 12. The words themselves alone do in such a case best declare the intention of the law giver." The learned Author observes further, "where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature." 12. In this interpretation of cl (8) taking into consideration the dictionary meaning assigned in the Act/ the Statutes, we are fortified by the kind of language used by the same statute framing authority (the State Government) at other places in these same Statutes. It is not without significance that wherever the State Government intended that affiliation of a college to a particular University be not the relevant factor, it has employed specific language to express that intention. CL 18.10 for instance, in prescribing the rules for determining the seniority of Principals and other teachers of affiliated colleges says :- "(e) Service in a substantive capacity in another University or another degree or post graduate college whether affiliated to or associated with the University or another University established by law shall be added to his length of service." 13. Sri Verma urged that to carry out the intention behind namely for enabling the appointee to have the benefit of seniority the language could not be otherwise. How may this very where instead the provision concerns past experience of teaching in an institution? There will obviously have been in that event some such expression as" another University" or another college and whether affiliated to the University or another University" used in cl (8) of Statute 11.13 placed in juxtaposition to cl 18.10(e) it becomes abundantly clear that consideration of any other University or College is excluded from the purview of cl 11.13(8). 14. There will obviously have been in that event some such expression as" another University" or another college and whether affiliated to the University or another University" used in cl (8) of Statute 11.13 placed in juxtaposition to cl 18.10(e) it becomes abundantly clear that consideration of any other University or College is excluded from the purview of cl 11.13(8). 14. In regard to computation of seniority for teachers appointed to the University likewise care has been taken to provide in statute 18.05(e) that "Service against an administrative appointment in any University or institution shall not count for the purposes of seniority." CL (c) of Statute 18.05 is even more explicit in this behalf :- When any teacher holding substantive post in any University (other than the University of Meerut) or in any constituent college or any Institute is appointed to a post of corresponding rank or grade in the University, the period of service rendered by such teacher in that grade or rank in such University shall be added to his length of service. 15. Statute 17.18 which prescribes that"A teacher of an affiliated college dismissed on any of the grounds mentioned in cl. (b), cl (c) cl (d) or cl (e) of Statute 17.04(1) shall not be reemployed in any University or in any college affiliated to or associated with any University in any capacity is also in point. Similar is the case with Statute 16.28 concerning teachers of the University as distinct from affiliated colleges. The expression "the University" also finds place in Statute 5.06 (iv) which provides that the academic council shall have the powers, inter alia, to advice the Executive Council in regard to the qualifications to be possessed by persons imparting instruction in particular subjects for the various degrees and diplomas of"the University" meaning thereby necessarily, the University of Meerut. The expression the University in cl (8) bears a definite dictionary meaning as per definition given in CL 1.03 (d); a departure therefrom and to read in place thereof 'any University' unwarranted it would be incongruous moreover to interpret the words" the Statutes or Ordinances of the University" as meaning the Statutes or Ordinances of any other University. The expression `affiliated' being itself relative pertains to the particular University of which these statutes are, namely, the Meerut University. 16. The expression `affiliated' being itself relative pertains to the particular University of which these statutes are, namely, the Meerut University. 16. Learned Counsel points that the definition clause 1.03 contains the usual rider, "unless the context otherwise requires." We are conscious of the importance which the context has in matters of this kind. In the words of Reed Dickerson : The interpretation and Application of Statutes (1975) P. 11 "Although subordinate, the role of context is highly significant. An utterance taken out of the specific context that it presupposes is at best inadequately oriented and over-general Not only does the context limit the normal sweep of primary (semantical) meaning but it often also selects among the alternative potentialities of primary meaning. The elements of context that perform the latter function are usually factual assumptions or ethical norms that are either expressly recited in the document or, more usually, judicially, noticed. They effect meaning by turning the potentialities of multiple, or alternative, primary meanings into the actualities of a single relevant primary meaning." 17. But what does the context wherein clause (8) is placed denote? Statute 11.13(1) prescribes the minimum qualifications for the appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college. Section 31(1) of the Act insists upon these qualifications being duly observed; the Vice Chancellor shall not accord approval to any appointment if he finds that the minimum qualifications or the experience prescribed are lacking vide S. 31(11)(c). The candidate has to have consistently good academic record with at least first or second class Master's degree in the subject. This is the context in which cl (8) provides an exemption. The rigour of the normal requirement for the staff recruited to teach in higher classes is relaxed to some extent thereunder but this can obtain only in the given situation. It hardly admits of liberal construction by importing words which the Statutes framing authority has designedly avoided. The exemption in our view must be construed strictly. 18. In the ordinary course Legislature is assumed to be aware of its own distinctions. If we find that in previous legislation two different words have been designedly used to express two distinct things, we may assume that in subsequent statutes the legislature has not lost sight of the distinction unformally observed in the preceding statutes. (Craies on Statute Law (7th Edition) p. 174). If we find that in previous legislation two different words have been designedly used to express two distinct things, we may assume that in subsequent statutes the legislature has not lost sight of the distinction unformally observed in the preceding statutes. (Craies on Statute Law (7th Edition) p. 174). Whereas, in the present, we are concerned with distinct words used in the same Statutes, there is a presumption that the same words or phrase bears the same meaning throughout the same statute. The authorities are unanimous in regard to the existence of such a presumption. See Maxwell : Interpretation of Statutes (12th edition) p. 278 : Cross : Statutory Interpretation (1976) P. 100; Craies : on Statute Law (1971) pp. 168-69 though they qualify this with a rule of caution namely that this presumption by itself is not of much weight and in the ultimate analysis this is a matter dependent on the scheme adopted in the concerned statute. We have in the light of these principles and keeping also in view that these are Statutes drawn by the Executive screened through the relevant provisions which lead to the irresistible conclusion that cl (8) could not have been intended to refer to any University other than the University of Meerut, or to any affiliated college other than college affiliated to this University. The construction cannot so strain the words as to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the language employed. 19. Sri Verma refers then to S. 4(4) of the Act and contends that this empowers the State Government to increase or diminish the area of University. The affiliation of certain colleges has changed with the reconstitution of the area of various universities. It is urged that if 'A were appointed in a college affiliated earlier say to Agra University and later that college gets affiliated to Meerut University, he may not according to this construction avail the benefit of experience as teacher in that other college; similarly, if say the appointment was made in some college in 1963 when the Meerut University was not established, then in that event he would not be eligible unless he has put in requisite number of years in a college affiliated to this University. These considerations do not oblige us to stretch the language of cl (8) otherwise plain and unambiguous so as to include within its ambit the experience of teaching in any college of whatever standard that might be. The framers have taken adequate care to ensure by use of express language that experience in a college affiliated to this University will alone count provided further it is established that the candidate fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes or Ordinances at the time of his initial appointment. In order that this clause may be interpreted in the way the learned counsel suggests we have to add words to it. This"the rules of interpretation do not permit us to do unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning' neither of which we think it is British India General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Captain Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331 at p. 1334, We cannot in the circumstances embark on a voyage of discovery to insert on our own what else is seemingly reasonable to be brought within this clause; Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839, Institutional preference for standards is not an unknown phenomenon. University wise classification for post graduate medical education subject to certain percentage kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like has been upheld (See : D.N. Chanch (1971) 2 SCC 293 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 : Dr. Jagdish Saran, (1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820 : Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 , The test that commends us for these reasons for acceptance in the present is thus stated by Reed Dickerson in the Interpretation and Application of Statutes : "The important interpretative problem is to determine, in the light of the text and its proper context, whether the facts suggesting that a normal reading of the language would produce an absurdity, an inequity, or unreasonableness create a presumption strong enough that the most plausible alternative is to conclude that the legislature did not mean what it expressly said. This is a matter of judgment under the circumstances, and specific results are hard to forecast. This is a matter of judgment under the circumstances, and specific results are hard to forecast. Although the presumption against absurdity is strong, the presumptions against unfairness and unreasonableness, depending on degree, are usually weak Normal statutes, especially long and complicated ones, bristle with at least minor inequities to the plaint where there is generally only a low statistical probability that the legislature intended something other than what it said. On this basis, a plain meaning rule may be valid even apart from excluding materials that lie beyond proper context. if it seeks to emphasise that the presumption that the legislature meant what it expressly said is not overcome merely because the result that it calls for would produce a mild absurdity, some unfairness, or less beneficial results than the manifest purpose of the statute would seem to call for." 20. We, therefore, find that the respondent 5 does not fulfill the prescribed minimum qualification for appointment as Lecturer in Military Science in an affiliated college of the Meerut University. The Vice Chancellor did not act in conformity with S. 31(11)(c) read with Statute 11.13 of this university in according approval to this appointment. The impugned order made by the chancellor is patently erroneous having been passed without consideration to these mandatory provisions. 21. This may appear harsh to the respondent No. 5 but the court, we are afraid may not help this. Crawford in Statutory Construction (1940) P. 344 observes :- ...... as a general rule ....the courts have no power to add to, or to change, alter, or eliminate the words which the legislature has incorporated in a statute, not even in order to provide for certain contingencies which the legislature failed to meet, or to avoid hardship flowing from the language used, or to advance the remedy of the statute." (Emphasis supplied) 22. It is well settled that it is not the duty of the court to import words which have been omitted deliberately or intentionally in order to fill up a gap or supply omission to fit in with the ideology or concept of the judge concerned. It is well settled that it is not the duty of the court to import words which have been omitted deliberately or intentionally in order to fill up a gap or supply omission to fit in with the ideology or concept of the judge concerned. The words and the language used must be given their natural meaning and interpreted in their ordinary and popular sense, observed Fazl Ali, J. in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Suppl SCC 87 at p. 377 : AIR 1982 SC 149 at p. 304, In Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jadvaji Keshavji Modi, (1981) 4 SCC 660 at p. 667 : AIR 1981 SC 2059 at Pp. 2063-64 the Supreme Court speaking through Chandrachud C.J. reiterated : "Both by common practice and the application of recognised rules of statutory construction harsh consequences following upon an interpretation are not considered as the governing factor in the construction of a statute unless its language is equivocal and ambiguous. If the language is plain and capable of one interpretation only, we will not be justified in reading into the words of the Act a meaning which does not follow naturally from the language used by the legislature". (Emphasis ours) 23. For the reasons the writ petition is allowed, the order dated Mar. 27, 1982 (Annexure III to the writ petition) passed by the respondent 1, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed and a direction is issued to the effect that the said respondent 1, the Chancellor, University of Meerut shall re-decide the representation made by the petitioner in the light of the observations made by us. 24. The parties shall bear their own costs. 25. The stay order dated May 10, 1982 stands vacated.