Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. W.A. No. 2420 of 1999 is preferred by State Government and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations aggrieved by the interpretation given by the learned single judge to clause 5.3.3.(a) of the Prospectus dealing with annual income of the family. Petitioner in the O.P. belongs to Thiyya community, which comes under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (in short "sebc"). On the basis of new rank list petitioner's rank is 1241. In the application form petitioner claimed admission in the quota ear-marked for SEBC. She also obtained community certificate in the application form itself stating that she belongs to Thiyya Community. Income certificate from the Village Officer, Pallickal showing that her annual family income is Rs. 42,000- was also obtained in the application form itself. According to her, even though she was entitled to get admission in the quota ear-marked for SEBC she was not called for interview. She therefore approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 19060 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to interview her also treating her as a member of the SEBC. On the basis of the interim order passed by this Court, she was interviewed and was provisionally selected to M.B.B.S. Course in Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram College, subject to further orders of this Court in O.P. No. 19060 of 1999. 2. O.P. No. 19060 of 1999 was finally heard by a learned single judge of this Court. Learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that petitioner is entitled to be considered under SEBC quota. Learned Judge observed that by Ext. P1 income certificate the Village Officer certified that the annual income of the petitioner's family is Rs. 42,000-. Learned Judge took the view that persons whose annual income is up to Rs. 42,000- are eligible to be considered in that category. State as well as the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, aggrieved by the interpretation given by learned single judge, have preferred the present appeal. 3. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Prospectus. Prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations sets out the rules and regulations for selection and admission to various Professional Courses in the State. Admission to various courses are regulated on the basis of merit as assessed in the common entrance examinations. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Prospectus. Prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations sets out the rules and regulations for selection and admission to various Professional Courses in the State. Admission to various courses are regulated on the basis of merit as assessed in the common entrance examinations. Out of total seats to various courses, seats are also reserved for various categories including for members of SEBC. Claim for communal reservation under SEBC is provided in clause 5.3.3 which is extracted below for easy reference. Note : Reservation to the Socially and Educationally Backward classes will be in accordance with the provisions contained in G.O.P. No. 208/66/Edn.dated 2.5.1966 as amended from time to time. (a) Candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as per G.O.P. No. 208/66/Edn. Dated 2.5.1966 whose annual family income (i.e annual income of all members in the family from all sources taken together) is below Rs. 42,000- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) are eligible for reservation under this item. The names of castes and communities under SEBC are given in Annexure VIII. (b) Candidates claiming reservation under SEBC quota such as Ezhava, Muslim, Other Backward Hindus, Latin Catholic other than Anglo Indian and other Backward Christian, should invariably produce both community and income certificates obtained from the concerned Village Officer. The above certificates should be obtained in the body of the application- form itself." The above mentioned clause states that candidates belonging to SEBC whose annual family income (i.e. annual income of all members in the family from all sources taken together) is below Rs. 42,000- are eligible for reservation under that SEBC. Candidates claiming reservation under SEBC quota have to produce community and income certificates obtained from the Village Officers concerned, and that the same should be obtained in the body of the application form itself. Petitioner in O.P. No. 19060 of 1999 on the basis of the above mentioned clause obtained the income certificate from the Village Officer, Pallickal stating that petitioner's annual family income is Rs. 42,000-. 4. Appellants took the view that since petitioner's annual family income is Rs. 42,000- she is not entitled to get reservation under SEBC quota. According to appellants as per clause 5.3.3.(a) only those applicants whose annual family income is below Rs. 42.000- are eligible for reservation under SEBC quota. Learned Government Pleader, Sri. 42,000-. 4. Appellants took the view that since petitioner's annual family income is Rs. 42,000- she is not entitled to get reservation under SEBC quota. According to appellants as per clause 5.3.3.(a) only those applicants whose annual family income is below Rs. 42.000- are eligible for reservation under SEBC quota. Learned Government Pleader, Sri. K. Jayakumar, submitted that clause is clear and there is no ambiguity in the said provision. According to learned Government Pleader learned judge committed an error in holding that persons whose annual family income is "up to Rs. 42,0002 are eligible to get reservation under SEBC. Learned counsel Sri. E.S.M. Kabeer appearing for the petitioner in O.P. No. 19060 of 1999 on the other hand contended that the intention of the appellants was to give benefit to those applicants whose annual family income is up to Rs. 42,000-. 5. We have gone through the Prospectus in detail and also heard arguments of counsel on either side. We are in agreement with the contention of learned Senior Government Pleader that the words "below Rs. 42,000-" cannot be read as "up to Rs. 42,000-". If it is up to Rs. 42,000- there would not be any difficulty. As held in Musharaf Hussain v. Agra MunawarAli, A.I.R.1940 Lahore 7, the word "up to" may include the last day or may not, and if it is in consonance with justice to interpret it in one of the ways permissible, the same could be accepted. In this case the words used in clause 5.3.3 are not "up to" but "below". On that score clause 5.3.3. is clear that members whose annual income is below Rs. 42,000- are only eligible for reservation under SEBC. But we cannot read clause 5.3.3.(a) in isolation. annexure XI deals with itemwise instructions to fill in the application forms. Clause 11(i) deals with candidates under SEBC. Clause 11(i) (3) reads as follows: "SEBC communities whose annual family income is below Rs. 42,000/- are eligible for reservation under this category. Such candidates should furnish the community and income certificates given on page 6 of the application in support of their claim. They should write the name of the community in the box given against item 11." 6. Clause 11(i) (3) reads as follows: "SEBC communities whose annual family income is below Rs. 42,000/- are eligible for reservation under this category. Such candidates should furnish the community and income certificates given on page 6 of the application in support of their claim. They should write the name of the community in the box given against item 11." 6. However, communal reservation for payment seats is provided in clause 11(1)(4) which reads as follows: "sebc/oec candidates claiming communal reservation as per the condition given in item 11 are eligible for communal reservation for both free and payment seats. However, candidates belonging to communities listed under SEBC category whose annual family income exceeds the limit of Rs. 42,000/- are eligible for communal reservation under Payment Seats. Such candidates should produce community certificate on page 6 of the application form, in order to claim reservation under Payment Seat. They need not produce income certificate. They should write the name of the community in the box given against item 11.1 or 11.2 as the case may be for claiming reservation under Payment Seats." It is therefore evident from clause 11(1)(4) that SEBC candidates are entitled to Payments seats as well if their annual family income exceeds Rs. 42,000-. Clauses 5.3.3.(a) and 11(i)(3) say that in order to get communal reservation under SEBC the annual family income should be below Rs. 42,000-. At the same time, clause 11(1)(4) states that candidates whose annual family income exceeds Rs. 42,000- are eligible for payment seats. Reading clauses 5.3.3,11(i)(3) and 11(1)(4) together, it is evident that the limit intended for communal reservation under SEBC quota is Rs. 42,000- and not below Rs. 42,000-. If the intention was to give the benefit of communal reservation to the candidates whose annual income is below Rs. 42,000-there is no necessity of stating in clause 11(1)(4) that those communities would also be eligible for payment seats if the annual family income exceeds Rs. 42,000-. There fore even though clauses.3.3 has not used the expression "up to" reading the Prospectus as a whole, we have to take it that the limit for communal reservation under SEBC quota is Rs. 42,000- otherwise clause 11(1)(4) would not have used the expression "exceeds the limit of Rs. 42,000/-." Further we may notice that even though clause 5.3.3(a) states that those who claim reservation under SEBC quota should have annual family income of below Rs. 42,000- otherwise clause 11(1)(4) would not have used the expression "exceeds the limit of Rs. 42,000/-." Further we may notice that even though clause 5.3.3(a) states that those who claim reservation under SEBC quota should have annual family income of below Rs. 42,000/-, while fixing the said limit by G.O.MS. No.126/94/H.Edn. dated 28th September, 1994 the Government has stated as follows: "Many requests were made from various circles to enhance the above income limit. Government after examining the matter are pleased to issue orders enhancing the income limit as follows: (1) Reservation of seats in educational institutions in respect of socially and educationally backward classes from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 42,000 " It is therefore clear from the above mentioned G.O. itself that the intention was to fix the income limit at Rs. 42,000- for reservation of seats to members of SEBC in the educational institutions. 7. If we find any inconsistency between clauses.3.3(a)and clause 11(1)(4) we have to reconcile the same. In order to find out the intention of the framers of the Prospectus the Court must ascertain the intention by directing its attention not merely to the clause to be construed but to the entire Prospectus. It must compare the clause with other clauses of the Prospectus, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs. A passage is thus interpreted by reference to what precedes and what follows it. It is an important rule of construction that the meaning given by the parties to any particular instrument should be understood ex antecedentibus et consequentlbus that is to say every part of it should be brought into action in order to collect from the whole one uniform and consistent sense if that may be done. 8. The Supreme court in Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras, A.I.R.1985 S.C.1034 held that the intention of the legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Reading of the entire instrument is referred to as an elementary role by Viscount Simonds in Attorney General v. H.R.H. Prince Earnest august us of Hanover (1957) 1 All.E.R.49. 8. The Supreme court in Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras, A.I.R.1985 S.C.1034 held that the intention of the legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Reading of the entire instrument is referred to as an elementary role by Viscount Simonds in Attorney General v. H.R.H. Prince Earnest august us of Hanover (1957) 1 All.E.R.49. Lord Green, M.R. in/Re Bidi (deceased), (1948) 2 All.E.R.998 stated that while ascertaining the meaning of a clause in a statute one must look at what precedes and what succeeds and not merely of the clause itself and the method to construe the statutes, he said, is to read the whole and to ask oneself the question "in this state in this context relating to the subject matter what is the true meaning of the word?". Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. Dr. V. Nagaraju, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 66 while interpreting certain provisions of the A.P. Rules for Admission to Post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges, pointed out that the meaning to be attributed to the expression "in service candidates" in rule 19(2) will have to be understood with reference to rule 3(2) along with the explanation thereto, which will make the intention of the parties clear. 9. applying the above mentioned principles when we read clause 5.3.3(a) and clause 11(1)(4) and G.O.MS. No.126/94/H.Edn. dated 28.9.1994 the intention of the State Government was to give benefit to members of SEBC whole annual family income is up to Rs. 42,000- and those applicants who are having annual family income exceeding Rs, 42,000- as stated in cl.11(i)(4) will be entitled to get admission under Payment seats. We may also notice that the State Government has granted the benefit to the communities which come under SEBC on the basis of Art.15(4) of the Constitution of India, which enables the State to make special provisions for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The object of Art.15(4) is to recognise the factual existence of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in our country and to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the community. It is on the basis of the said constitutional provisions that the State has made provision in the Prospectus such as clause 5.3.3(a) and 11(1)(4). The object of Art.15(4) is to recognise the factual existence of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in our country and to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the community. It is on the basis of the said constitutional provisions that the State has made provision in the Prospectus such as clause 5.3.3(a) and 11(1)(4). In case of conflict, when we reconcile both the clauses, we have to adopt such a construction which will advance the interest of the communities which came under SEBC. When there is ambiguity or conflict, Courts should lean in favour to uphold the object of the Constitution. We must also try to construe the provision in such a way whether it is possible to construe it so as to obviate the conflict between its various other provisions and also to render the Prospectus or any of its clause constitutional and legal. 10. Viewed in the above mentioned perspective, we are of the view that the intention of the framers of the Prospectus was to give benefit to the communities whose annual family income is up to Rs. 42,000- and members of communities whose annual family income exceeds Rs. 42,000/- would be entitled to apply for reservation under Payment seats. For the reasons stated above we dismiss the appeal. We notice that petitioner was already given memo of admission for the M.B B S. Course in the Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram College. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations will give the benefit of reservation to the petitioner accordingly. Since we have already dismissed the appeal preferred by the State, O.P. No. 26508 of 1999 has become in fructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed.