Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 671 (MP)

Lalit Jangde v. High Court of Chhattisgarh

2011-06-24

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. With the consent of Shri Lalit Jangde appearing in person and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal appearing for respondent the petition is heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, has challenged the action of respondent and the consequent issuance of Annexure P-2 which is a list of the candidates who have been found ineligible for appearing in the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Preliminary Examination, 2011 to be held on 26-6-2011. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice it would be to state the facts very briefly thus. 4. An advertisement (Annexure P-1) was issued by the respondent on 7th March, 2011 inviting applications from intending candidates for appearing in the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Preliminary Examination, 2011. The said advertisement was for 29 posts out of which 4 are reserved for Scheduled Caste and 5 numbers of posts are reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner submitted his application along with fee of Rs. 300/- by way of challan, as he is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Admittedly, the petitioner did not annex his caste certificate along with application and this is the reason for rejection of his application. 5. Petitioner, appearing in person, has argued that on plain reading of Clause 19 of the advertisement it would appear that the certificates are required to be attached with the application form for the main examination and there was no requirement of submitting the caste certificate or any other certificate while submitting application for preliminary examination for claiming relaxation in fee. 6. He would further submits that the instructions for the candidates published along with advertisement uses the word 'and' in between the word age and fees, therefore, the said instructions would be applicable to a reserved category candidate who is seeking relaxation in age as well as fees and the said instructions is not applicable in the present case. 7. He has further submitted that there is violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. 7. He has further submitted that there is violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that the entire advertisement including the main advertisement as well as instructions for the: candidates are to be read and understood as a whole, in its entirety, and the same should not be read in isolation so as to attach different meaning at different stages and for different aspects. He would submit that if the instructions for the candidates are read and understood in the manner in which the petitioner is canvassing, the same would result in a anomalous situation wherein no candidate would be required to submit any certificate of any nature even if he claims relaxation in fees or otherwise. He would further submit that in appropriate cases, depending upon the object for which the advertisement has been issued the word 'and' is required to be read as 'or'. He would then submit that the petitioner's application was not complete in all respect, therefore, reject on of the same is in accordance with the terms of advertisement and no interference can be made. 9. This Court has heard the parties at length. 10. In Clause 9 of the advertisement the schedule of fees has been provided. For candidate belonging to general category fee of Rs. 500/ has been prescribed whereas for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class category relaxed amount of Rs. 300/- has been prescribed. 11. Thus, there is no doubt that with respect to payment of fees for preliminary examination there is a relaxation provided for candidates of reserved category. 12. When the matter stood thus now the instructions to candidates are to be perused. Paragraph 7 of the instruction provides that "for relaxation in age and fees, caste certificate issued by Competent Authority must be attached". This instruction thus clearly provides that for seeking relaxation in age and fee production of caste certificate is sine qua non. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his caste certificate and his application has been rejected on this ground. This instruction thus clearly provides that for seeking relaxation in age and fee production of caste certificate is sine qua non. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his caste certificate and his application has been rejected on this ground. This Court is not convinced with the argument put forth by the petitioner that Paragraph 7 of the instructions would be applicable where the reserved category candidate is seeking relaxation both in age as well as in respect of fees. Even though word 'and' has been used in between the word age and fees, the same would not give it a different meaning because petitioner or like candidates are seeking relaxation of one kind or the other. There may be cases in which a candidate, like the petitioner, is not seeking relaxation in age, but is otherwise seeking relaxation with respect to fees by depositing only Rs. 300/- applicable for reserved category candidate, therefore, the said Paragraph 7 would be applicable in both the cases, i.e., in cases where relaxation is sought in age as also in fees and in cases where relaxation is sought in age or in fees. 14. In the matter of Ishwar Singh Bindra Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1968 SC 1540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-- The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally conjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of Legislature as disclosed from the context. 15. In the matter of Sawniy Steel and Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I.T., (1997) 8 SCC 173 (188), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-- If the literal reading of the words produces an unintelligible or absurd result 'and' may be read for 'or' and 'or' for 'and' even though the result of so modifying the words is less favorable to the subject provided that the intention of the Legislature is quite clear, but if reading of 'and' as 'or' produces grammatical distortion and makes no sense of the portion following 'and', 'or' cannot be read in place of 'and'. 16. In the matter of Cable Corporation of India Vs. 16. In the matter of Cable Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Labor, (2008) 7 SCC 680 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-- The word 'or' is normally disjunctive 'and' is normally conjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as discovered from the context. The Court was interpreting the word 'or' in Section 25-N (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the case, it was held that the plain reading of the provision makes the position clear that two ways are open. Power is conferred on the Appropriate Government to either on its own motion or on an application made, review its order or refer the matter to the Tribunal. Whether one or the other course could be adopted depends on the facts of each case, the surrounding circumstances and several other relevant factors. 17. In the matter of M. Satyanarayana Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (1986) 2 SCC 512 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-- A statute cannot be construed merely with reference to grammar. Statute whenever the language permits must be construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature. The expression 'and' has generally a cumulative effect, requiring the fulfillment of all the conditions that it joins together and it is the antithesis. 18. In R. Vs. Oakes, (1959) 2 All England Law Reports, Lord Parker, CJ., has taken a similar view to read the word 'or' for 'and' to avoid manifest absurdity in construction of the provision and to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. 19. The next argument of the petitioner is that under Clause 19 it is provided that all the certificates are required to be attached with the application form for the main examination, therefore, the application cannot be rejected on the ground of non-submission of caste certificate at the stage of preliminary examination. 20. This Court is not again convinced with the argument raised by the petitioner. Clause 19 of the advertisement is reproduced herein for ready reference :-- 19. A certificate valid in all respect regarding relaxation in age for Preliminary Examination is required to be submitted before the Registry along with the application. All the certificates are required to be attached with the application form for the Main Examination. Clause 19 of the advertisement is reproduced herein for ready reference :-- 19. A certificate valid in all respect regarding relaxation in age for Preliminary Examination is required to be submitted before the Registry along with the application. All the certificates are required to be attached with the application form for the Main Examination. The format of application form for Main Exam or information regarding it will be given after the declaration of result of the Preliminary Examination. 21. The first part of Clause 19 speaks about the requirement of submission of certificate for preliminary examination and the second part is about requirement of submission of certificate for main examination. On a careful reading it would mean that a candidate is required to submit certificates in the preliminary examination as well as while filling of the application for main examination, otherwise the first part of the clause would be rendered redundant. 22. Petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay. (1984) 2 SCC 183 (Paragraph 45) to argue that in the present case, word 'and' cannot be read as 'or'. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that depending upon the context, 'or' may be read as 'and' but the Court would not do it unless it is so obliged because 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and 'and' does not generally mean 'or'. 23. In the case in hand, this Court has not considered and appreciated the instructions for the candidates particularly Paragraph 7 thereof in isolation, but since the said paragraph has to be read along with various clauses of the advertisement and because the petitioner is seeking relaxation in fees applicable to a reserved category candidate, the issue regarding grant of relaxation or otherwise as a reserved category candidate cannot be decided by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent unless a certificate is annexed along with the application form. 24. In the above view of the matter, this Court would hold that in the context of the present case the word 'and' used in Paragraph 7 of the instructions for the candidates is required to be read as 'or'. 25. There is no substance in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.