JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J.:- 1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the remaining respondents. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner who is presently serving as an Accountant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West has challenged the promotion of the private respondents 3, 4 and 5 to the posts of Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC) primarily on the ground that the private respondents, who merely possess the qualifications of Matriculation, PUC and HSLC and as such, not "under graduate", are not eligible for promotion to the posts of SDC, since as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub-Deputy Collector only "graduates" and "under graduates" are eligible for promotion. 3. Appointment to the post of Sub-Deputy Collector in the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur, is governed by the Recruitment Rules known as the Revenue Department (Sub-Deputy Collector) Recruitment Rules, 1981 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per the said Recruitment Rules (RR), 33 1/2% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion and remaining by direct recruitment. As regards promotion, the post is to be filled up from amongst the following feeder posts as provided in column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules: 1) Superintendent, DC's Office with 3 years regular service in the grade. 2) Head Clerk, Treasury with 3 years regular service in the grade. 3) Head Clerk, Settlement Department with 3 years regular service in the grade. 4) Sadar Accountant with 3 years regular service in the grade. 5) Revenue Inspector with 8 years regular service in the grade for under graduate and with 5(five) years in the case of graduates. 6) Accountants, DC Office with 8 years regular service in grade for under graduates and with 5 years in the case of graduates. 7) UDCs of Revenue Department with 8 years regular service in the grade for under graduates and with 5 years in the case of graduates. 8) Settlement Supervisor with 4 years regular service in the grade. 4. The petitioner as well as the private respondents before their promotion is/were holding the posts of Accountants in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 8) Settlement Supervisor with 4 years regular service in the grade. 4. The petitioner as well as the private respondents before their promotion is/were holding the posts of Accountants in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, their eligibility for promotion to the post of SDC has to be examined in terms of Sl. No. 6 of Column 11 of the RR as quoted above. According to the petitioner, the private respondents 3, 4 and 5 are neither "graduates" nor "under graduates" in terms of the RR mentioned above as they are merely Matriculate/PUC/HSLC passed and hence not even "under graduates". As such, they are not eligible for promotion to the post SDC. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the recommendation of the private respondents for promotion to the posts of SDC by Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) in terms of the proceeding of the DPC held on 7.10.2011 and also the subsequent promotion order dated 17.10.2011 issued by the State Government. 5. The petitioner contends that an under graduate qualification means the qualification of a person who had studied at least the First Degree Course but did not complete the entire Degree course. Thus, a person who is merely a Matriculate or HSLC or PUC passed, who had not undertaken the First Degree Course and thus could not complete it, cannot be said to be an under graduate. It has been submitted on the other hand that the petitioner is a Graduate in Arts and is eligible and such non-recommendation of the petitioner who is eligible and recommendation of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are not eligible as per the recruitment rules is illegal. 6. Even though the State respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, nothing has been said about the meaning of "under graduate" except for denying the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are not eligible for promotion to the post of Sub Deputy Collectors. 7. The Manipur Public Service Commission in their affidavit-in-opposition, however, has taken the plea as regards the aforesaid issue that those who had passed B.A., B.Sc., B.Com with Honours or pass course and thereby obtained the relevant degrees from a recognized Universities are treated and considered as "graduates" and those who do not possess the aforesaid degrees are treated and considered as "under graduates". It is stated that there is a thin line which divides the "graduates" and "under graduates", which is the possession of the aforementioned degrees. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the materials on record. 9. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Sankar Lal Sharma v. State in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4345/1997 and two other writ petitions decided on 15.04.2010 has submitted that only a person who is a higher secondary passed i.e. one stage immediately below the stage of graduate, would be considered as under graduate. It has been submitted that since respondents No. 3 and 4 are merely Matriculate/HSLC passed, they are not "under graduates" and as such their promotion to the post of SDC being not "under graduates" cannot be sustained. It has been submitted, however, that as the respondent No. 4 has passed the PUC which is equivalent to Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate which is one stage immediately below the stage of "graduate", will be eligible in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 10. On the other hand, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission, has strongly contended, relying on a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issues relating to academic qualification is a technical matter decided by the experts, in this case by the Manipur Public Service Commission, as such, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to interfere with such experts' opinion. In this connection, the learned senior counsel, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- 1. Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another, 2008 (9) SCC 284 . 2. Guru Nanak University v. Sanjoy Kumar Katwal and another, 2009 (1) SCC 610 . 3. University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), 2013 (10) SCC 519 . 4. Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others With Manjunath (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, 2010 (8) SCC 372 . 5. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. v. Kamini and others, 2007 (5) SCC 519 . 6. Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, UPSC and others, 2006 (8) SCC 42 . 7. Mohd. 4. Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others With Manjunath (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, 2010 (8) SCC 372 . 5. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. v. Kamini and others, 2007 (5) SCC 519 . 6. Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, UPSC and others, 2006 (8) SCC 42 . 7. Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, 2009 (4) SCC 555 . 11. Therefore, the issues raised in this writ petition is the scope and meaning of the word "under graduate" as found in the recruitment rules for the post of Sub Deputy Collector and whether anyone having Matriculate or PUC/HSSLC passed could be considered to be "under graduate" within the meaning of the aforesaid recruitment rules. 12. As we proceed to examine these issues, this Court has to keep in mind certain well established principles relating to interpretation of statute. 13. It is now well settled that while interpreting the statute, the statute is to be construed according to the true intent of the legislature. Thus, if a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intent of the legislature which task, however, is not an easy one. Therefore, the Court has to resort to other well laid down principles that statute must be read as a whole in its context i.e. to interpret in such a manner that it remains consistent with the enactment of the whole statute. While doing so, it must be also ensured that the statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. 14. Having kept the aforesaid principles in mind, we may now proceed to examine the issues at hand. 15. We are interpreting the words "under graduate" as found in the recruitment rules for the post of Sub Deputy Collector. The said words "under graduate" have been used in contradistinction to "graduate" in fixing the eligibility criteria in respect of the feeder posts for promotion to the post of SDC. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid recruitment rules show that 33 1/2% of the posts of SDCs are to be filled up by promotion and remaining by direct recruitment. As regards direct recruitment, the essential qualification is possession of a degree of a recognised university. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid recruitment rules show that 33 1/2% of the posts of SDCs are to be filled up by promotion and remaining by direct recruitment. As regards direct recruitment, the essential qualification is possession of a degree of a recognised university. In other words, only graduates i.e., the degree holders are eligible for appointment as SDC under direct recruitment quota. However, as regards promotion, a number of feeder posts in various departments including the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Settlement Department, etc., have been made eligible for promotion to the post of SDC as provided under the recruitment rules. In the list of the feeder posts, Accountants who are working in the office of the DCs are included as eligible for promotion to the post of SDC. Amongst these Accountants, those who are the graduates who had rendered minimum 5 years of service and under graduates having minimum 8 years of service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of SDC. In other words, as far as the feeder posts of Accountants are concerned, the recruitment rules has differentiated the posts of Accountants into 2 (two) categories, viz., "graduates" and "under graduates". Similarly, it is also seen that in respect of the feeder posts of Revenue Inspectors and UDCs serving in the Revenue Department these feeder posts have been also categorised into 2 (two) groups, "graduates" who have rendered minimum 5 years of service and "under graduates" who have rendered 8 years of regular service in the grade. However, in respect of other feeder posts, namely, Superintendents, who are working in the office of the DCs, Head Clerks working in the Treasury Office, Head Clerks working in the Settlement Department, Sadar Accountant and Settlement Supervisors, there is no such differentiation between "graduates" and "under graduates". 17. It is in this context that we have to understand the meaning of the expression "under graduate". Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on the dictionary meaning of the word "under graduate" has contended that an "under graduate" is a person who is studying for the First Degree in an university or a college and as such, the holders of "under graduate" qualification means a person who studied at least the First Degree Course but has not completed the entire degree course. Therefore, any person who has left his studies after Class XII/Intermediate without undergoing any part of under graduate course is not an "under graduate", which therefore, would include a person who is merely a matriculate. However, at the time of hearing of this case, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, relying on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Sankar Lal Sharma (supra) has submitted that a person who has completed Class XII or Higher Secondary Certificate/Pre-University Course can be considered to be an "under graduate". A matriculate, however, by any manner of interpretation cannot be considered to be an "under graduate". As opposed to this contention, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission as well as Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A., appearing for the State respondents, have contended that all those who are not graduates can be deemed to be "under graduates" and since it is also the decision of an Expert Body, in this case, the Manipur Public Service Commission. Therefore, this interpretation given by an expert body ought not be interfered with by the Court. No other submission however, has been made as to how a person who is a matriculate is also treated as an "under graduate". 18. On perusal of the final inter se seniority list of employees in the feeder posts for promotion to the post of SDC, which has been annexed as Annexure-A/6 by the writ petitioner, it is noted that there are many other UDCs who are working in the offices of the Deputy Commissioners who are merely having the educational qualification of HSLC and matriculation and they have been also considered for promotion to the post of SDC. In fact, many of them have been recommended for promotion and appointed to the posts of SDC. Thus, it is not only in respect of the feeder posts of the Accountants but also in respect of the UDCs that the authorities/MPSC have treated those persons with HSLC/Matriculation qualification as "under graduates", though the expression "under graduate" may mean a person undertaking a graduation course or course just below the graduation level as contended by the petitioner, as also understood in the academic circles. However, it is to be noted that it is not defined anywhere in the Recruitment Rules or in any other statutes as to the meaning of "under graduate". However, it is to be noted that it is not defined anywhere in the Recruitment Rules or in any other statutes as to the meaning of "under graduate". Therefore, in absence of a well defined or well accepted meaning of expression "under graduate", the expression "under graduate" cannot be restricted to that meaning as proposed by the petitioner. Perusal of the recruitment rules as quoted, would indicate that the rule making authorities while classifying some of the feeder posts into graduates and under graduates provided different years of experience for each category commensurate with the educational qualification. However, there is nothing in the recruitment rules which would indicate that those Accountants or UDCs who have not passed Class XII or Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination cannot be considered for promotion and only those who are PUC/HSSLC passed or are undergoing graduation course or who could not complete the graduation course would only be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Deputy Collector, as the petitioner would like this Court to accept. But, in absence of any such disqualifying provision, it may not be appropriate to restrict and confine the meaning and expression of the term "under graduate" merely to those who had passed HSSLC examination and who were undergoing graduation course. It is also to be noted that the expression "under graduate" and "graduate" are to be found only while dealing with promotion as under graduates are not eligible for appointment as SDCs under the direct recruitment quota. By its very nature, the provision for promotion has been incorporated in the RR to give promotional avenues to persons holding lower posts but having adequate experience in a particular field. Since Accountants who have rendered long years of service have been made eligible for promotion to the post of SDC, unless specifically debarred or provided, such disqualification as sought by the petitioner ought not be read into the rules. For example, if the recruitment rules had clearly mentioned that only those under graduate Accountants who have passed PUC/HSSLC could be promoted, it would exclude all those under graduate Accountants who are merely matriculates. The problem has arisen because of the uncertainty of the meaning of "under graduate" as available in the recruitment rules. If a liberal interpretation is given as has been done by the MPSC and the State authorities, this would include anybody who are not graduates. The problem has arisen because of the uncertainty of the meaning of "under graduate" as available in the recruitment rules. If a liberal interpretation is given as has been done by the MPSC and the State authorities, this would include anybody who are not graduates. However, if a restricted meaning is given by confining only to those only who have passed PUC/HSSLC or could not complete graduation course, it would obviously exclude the matriculate/HSLC certificate holders. Therefore, the question is as to which of the meanings this Court has to accept, the liberal meaning or the restricted meaning as discussed above. In this context, it may be also remembered that this Court has to interpret the statue in a manner which is most workable and would not lead to a situation where some persons would be disqualified. Therefore, the Court should not adopt a very restrictive meaning unless the statute itself makes it very clear. As discussed above, the authorities have not made any distinction between persons who are only having matriculation/HSLC qualification, and those who are Class XII or Higher Secondary Certificate/PUC Certificate holders. The authorities have treated all those serving Accountants who are not graduates be "under graduates" for the purpose of promotion to the post of SDC considering the long service and service they have already rendered irrespective of whether they are merely matriculates or PUC or HSSLC holders. Therefore, if this Court accepts the restricted meaning and interpretation of the expression "under graduates" it would obviously exclude those Accountants who are merely matriculates. If that is so, all those Accountants who are merely matriculates would be left out for consideration for promotion to the post of SDC and cannot be promoted to the post of SDC. As discussed above, however, there is nothing in the recruitment rules to suggest that those matriculate Accountants cannot be considered for promotion to the post of SDC. It seems that Accountants who are merely matriculates/HSLC passed are also treated at par with other Accountants who are "under graduates" within the meaning proposed by the petitioners. They are discharging the same duties and responsibilities enjoy the same status. Nothing has been brought on record to make any distinction between these two groups. It seems that Accountants who are merely matriculates/HSLC passed are also treated at par with other Accountants who are "under graduates" within the meaning proposed by the petitioners. They are discharging the same duties and responsibilities enjoy the same status. Nothing has been brought on record to make any distinction between these two groups. On the other hand, if the Court adopts a liberal interpretation of the expression "under graduate" as discussed above, it would not lead to any uncertainty or ambiguity or disqualification as regards the status of those Accountants who are merely matriculates, as they are discharging the same duties and responsibilities and enjoying similar benefits as other Accountants and as such they would be equally eligible as other category of Accountants. 19. The expression "under graduate" may be also examined in the context of the word "graduate" mentioned in the recruitment rules. If the expression "under graduate" is understood to mean those who are not graduates vis-à-vis the "graduates", it cannot be said that such an interpretation would be wholly unreasonable or contrary to the intent or provisions of the recruitment rules. On the other hand, as discussed above, giving an inclusive and expansive definition to the expression "under graduates" would lead to more harmonious and workable interpretation of the recruitment rules by considering the case of all those experienced Accountants though they may be merely Matriculates/HSLC holders. Such an interpretation cannot be said to be contrary to any specific provision of the statute or lead to any absurdity. 20. This Court has also taken into consideration the practice adopted by the authorities as has been discussed above. From the records it seems that the authorities have been taking the view that those who are matriculates are also "undergraduates" and accordingly, the authorities have given promotion to the post of SDC not only in respect of such categories of Accountants but also UDCs. 21. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is not able to subscribe to the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Shankar Lal Sharma (supra) considering the practice adopted by the authorities and also in absence of any intention not to consider promotion all those Accountants who are having only matriculate/HSLC qualification. 21. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is not able to subscribe to the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Shankar Lal Sharma (supra) considering the practice adopted by the authorities and also in absence of any intention not to consider promotion all those Accountants who are having only matriculate/HSLC qualification. This Court is of the view that giving a more liberal and expansive meaning to the expression "under graduate" as discussed above does not do any violence to the rules. The stand taken by the authorities not to deprive those Accountants who are merely matriculates/equivalent from being considered for consideration for promotion to the post of SDC and this cannot be considered to be unreasonable. This Court also considered that the view taken by the expert body i.e., the Manipur Public Service Commission that those who are not "graduates" are treated to be as "under graduates" cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable and accordingly, this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would refrain from interfering with such an opinion of an expert body like the MPSC. In the result, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. 22. However, even though this writ petition is dismissed, at the time of hearing, it has been stated that 1(one) post of SDC has become vacant upon the retirement of the respondent No. 4, on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 31.5.2012. Since the vacancy has arisen, the authorities may take steps as expeditiously as possible for filling up the said vacancy and along with other vacancies, if have arisen, provided these fall under the promotion quota. _______________