CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner, a Doctor by profession and working with the Government Medical College, Bhavnagar as Professor, initially prayed for issue of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to place the correct figures of the students who had passed the examination in the academic year of July 2012 and 2013 from the Gujarat Board, Central Board and ISCE Board, for the purpose of verifying whether the requisite reservation in medical course had been maintained for the said academic year, i.e. 2013, in the interest of the public at large. 2. The grievance of the writ-petitioner was that for the year 2013, for admission in the professional medical course, the provisions of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Course (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Amendment Rules, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘amended Medical Educational Course Rules, 2013’] had not been complied with. 3. The State-respondent raised an objection that this Public Interest Litigation was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner as her son was a candidate for admission to the medical educational course for the year 2013-14. This Court, vide order dated 31st January 2014, expressed the view that the question involved in this writ-application being definitely of public importance, for the subsequent years, specific guidelines are required to be framed, and as such decided to entertain the petition and appointed Ms. Kruti M. Shah, a learned advocate of this Court, as amicus curiae for assisting this Court instead of permitting the petitioner to move the same in person. 4. We further found that the time period for admission for the academic year 2013-14 having already expired, the son of the petitioner was not going to derive any advantage out of this application, and this writ application should be decided on merits in public interest to lay down guidelines for the subsequent years as the stance taken by the Respondent was prima facie not tenable. 5. The question that was raised in the original application was whether the provisions contained in rule 10 of the amended Medical Educational Course Rules, 2013 relating to distribution of seats between the candidates of the Gujarat Board and the other Boards were followed in the admission for the year 2013. 5. The question that was raised in the original application was whether the provisions contained in rule 10 of the amended Medical Educational Course Rules, 2013 relating to distribution of seats between the candidates of the Gujarat Board and the other Boards were followed in the admission for the year 2013. As the last date of admission was over, virtually, this application became infructuous; however, in the meantime affidavits having been filed by the respondents, we have decided to lay down guidelines on the basis of the aforesaid Rule 10 of the amended Medical Educational Course Rules, 2013 as, in our opinion, the stance of the State Government on the interpretation of the above Rule 10 was not correct, and in the process, the students appearing from the other Boards than the Gujarat Boards would be prejudiced. 6. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in Rules 5 and 10 of the amended Medical Educational Course Rules, 2013, which are quoted below:- 5. Eligibility for Admission.-[1] For the purpose of admission, a candidate shall have- [A] Passed the qualifying examination with “B-group” or “ABgroup” from [i] the Gujarat Board; or [ii] the Central Board of Secondary Education provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, should have been located in the State of Gujarat; or [iii] the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations Board, New Delhi provided that the school in which the candidate has studied should have been located in the State of Gujarat: Provided that the candidate seeking admission in Ayurveda shall have passed either the qualifying examination or the 10th examination with Sanskrit subject, and [B] Appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year. [2] [a] Sons and Daughters of All India Services Officers viz. Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service allotted to the Gujarat State and serving outside the Gujarat State on deputation, and [b] Sons and daughters of Gujarat Government Employees, who have been posted outside the Gujarat State for the administrative reasons, shall be treated at par with the candidates under sub-rule [1] provided they have passed the qualifying examination from the respective State Board and he/she must have appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year and obtained marks under sub-rule [3] of rule 12. In such cases, his/her candidature shall be included in the Gujarat Board merit list referred to in clause [a] of sub-rule [2] of rule 11. If such a candidate has passed the qualifying examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education or the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination Board, New Delhi his/her candidature shall be included in the merit list of respective Board referred to in clause [b] of said sub-rule [2]. [3] A candidate who has, [i] Studied under Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme upto Standard VIII in any of the schools located in the State of Gujarat, [ii] thereafter studied in any of the schools located out of the State of Gujarat under the said scheme, [iii] passed qualifying examination from a Navodaya Vidyalay located outside Gujarat State and [iv] appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year and obtained marks under sub-rule [3] of rule 12 shall be eligible for admission and his candidature shall be included in the merit list of Central Board as prescribed in clause [b] of sub-rule [2] of rule 11. Explanation.-“Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme: means the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme started during the year 1985-86 by the Government of India in accordance with the National Policy of Education. The scheme is managed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous organization under the department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. [4] A candidate who has passed the qualifying examination after appearing in the supplementary examination conducted by the Board shall not be eligible for admission in the current academic year. [5] A candidate who has secured admission under these rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he/she might have completed the course in which he/she has secured admission. Explanation.-“Candidates who had taken admission after the implementation of the Act shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he/she might have completed the course in which he/she has been secured admission i.e. candidates admitted in academic year 2008-09 and onwards”. 10. Explanation.-“Candidates who had taken admission after the implementation of the Act shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he/she might have completed the course in which he/she has been secured admission i.e. candidates admitted in academic year 2008-09 and onwards”. 10. Distribution of Seats between Students of Gujarat Board and other Boards.- For the purpose of admission, the available seats shall be distributed between students of the Gujarat Board and other Boards on pro-rata basis, taking into consideration the number of students passed from the Gujarat Board, Central Boards and the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi in the relative academic year: Provided that where any seat remain vacant in the category of Central Board or, as the case may be, the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi, the same shall be filled in from the candidates of merit list of Gujarat Board. (Underlines given by us.) 7. From the affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that while taking into consideration the number of students appearing in the admission test for the year 2013, the respondents took into consideration virtually all the students appearing in the examination irrespective of the fact whether they really passed the Board examination in the year 2013. 8. Mr. Baxi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the state-Respondent, has vehemently contended that while deciding the question of reservation of seats for different Boards, the total number of students appearing from various Boards and the total number of candidates in the process of selection should be considered, and it is immaterial whether they passed the Board examination in the current academic year or on earlier occasions. 9. Ms. Kruti M Shah, the learned amicus curiae, on the other hand has opposed the aforesaid contention and has submitted that the language used in the Rule 10 is quite clear and according to the said rule, for the purpose of fixing the quota of different Boards, the total number of students appearing from different Boards should not be considered but only those number of those students will be required to be taken into account who have passed the respective Board examination in the current year. In other words, according to Ms. In other words, according to Ms. Shah, if a candidate passed the Board examination in any of the previous years but has appeared in this year’s admission test, for the purpose of calculating the quota, the number of those students should not be taken into consideration. 10. From the affidavits filed by the respondents, it appears that in calculating the figures, the presence of candidates who passed by way of even supplementary examination in the earlier years were also taken into consideration. 11. Mr. Baxi, in this connection, placed strong reliance upon Rule 5 and contended that a student who has passed the current year’s supplementary examination being not eligible, he can sit in the admission test only in the next year, and thus, the number of those students should also be taken into consideration while deciding the quota of the Board which he represents. According to Mr. Baxi, while interpreting Rule 10, the provisions of Rule 5 should also be taken into consideration for the purpose of appreciating the object of the Rule. Mr. Baxi, therefore, contended that there was nothing wrong in taking into consideration the candidates who passed the supplementary examination in the last year and also the candidates who passed the Board examination in any of the previous years but were eligible. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contained in Rule 10 quoted above, we are at one with Ms.Shah that if the intention of the Rule was to take into consideration the total number of students appearing from different Boards irrespective of the fact whether they passed the Board examination in the current year or not for the purpose of fixation of quota, the legislation in question, after the phrase “on pro-rata basis”, would not have added the phrase “taking into consideration the number of students passed from the Gujarat Board, Central Boards and the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi in the relative academic year. 13. We agree with the aforesaid submissions of Ms. Shah inasmuch as if the intention of the Rule 10 was to take into consideration the total number of candidates appearing from different Boards in the process of selection in question, such intention would have been achieved, by the first clause of Rule 10, viz. 13. We agree with the aforesaid submissions of Ms. Shah inasmuch as if the intention of the Rule 10 was to take into consideration the total number of candidates appearing from different Boards in the process of selection in question, such intention would have been achieved, by the first clause of Rule 10, viz. for the purpose of admission, the available seats shall be distributed between the students of Gujarat Board and others Boards on pro-rata basis and there was no necessity of further adding “taking into consideration the number of students passed from the Gujarat Board, Central Boards and the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi in the relative academic year.” 14. It is well settled rule of interpretation that for understanding the intention of the legislature, the Court should bear in mind that the legislature does not add excess words. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1170 on the principles of interpretation of statutes: “In the interpretation of statutes the courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. These presumptions will have to be made in the case of rule making authority also.” 15. It is also well-settled law that if the language employed in a piece of legislation is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the Court to interpret the same in a different way simply because the Court thinks that it would be wiser to adopt another reasonable view instead of the one specifically mandated in the statutory provisions. In this connection, we may refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of B. PREMCHAND VS. MOHAN KOIKAL reported in AIR 2011 SC 1925 where detailed discussions were made on the scope of deviation from the literal rule of interpretation of a Statute after taking into consideration a large number of decisions:- “13. In our opinion, Rule 27(c) of the Rules is plain and clear. Hence, the literal rule of interpretation will apply to it. MOHAN KOIKAL reported in AIR 2011 SC 1925 where detailed discussions were made on the scope of deviation from the literal rule of interpretation of a Statute after taking into consideration a large number of decisions:- “13. In our opinion, Rule 27(c) of the Rules is plain and clear. Hence, the literal rule of interpretation will apply to it. No doubt, equity may be in favour of the respondents because they were selected earlier, but as observed earlier, if there is a conflict between equity and the law, it is the law which must prevail. The law, which is contained in Rule 27(c), is clearly in favour of the appellants. 14. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the private respondents. The language of Rule 27(c) of the Rules is clear and hence we have to follow that language. 15. In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO, AIR 1973 SC 1034 , this Court observed: "In construing a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear." (Emphasis supplied) 16. Mr. Baxi, the learned AGP, in this connection tried to impress upon us that the term “in the relative academic year” does not mean “current year”, and if that was the intention of the legislature, the words “current year” as appearing in clause 5(4) would have been used. We are afraid, we are not impressed by the said submission of Mr. Baxi. Rule 5 speaks of eligibility of candidates and Rule 5(4) speaks of prohibition of candidates in appearing in a particular year which is based on qualifying examination when a candidate appears in the supplementary examination conducted by the Board in the current academic year. It is true that in clause 10 also, the phrase “current academic year” could also be used instead of “in the relative academic year” but in order to accept the interpretation of Mr. It is true that in clause 10 also, the phrase “current academic year” could also be used instead of “in the relative academic year” but in order to accept the interpretation of Mr. Baxi, we have to totally ignore the 2nd part of rule 10 after the words “on pro-rata basis” which is not permissible. Even according to the plain dictionary meaning, the adjective “relative” is equivalent to inter alia “corresponding, pertinent, relevant” etc. Thus, the intention of the legislature was to refer to only those students who passed the Board examination in the corresponding or pertinent or relevant academic year on which the admission test is held, and not in any previous year. 17. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, hold that from the present academic year, viz. 2014-15, while fixing the quota of the seats between the students of Gujarat Board and the other Boards, only the number of students appearing from each of the Boards who have passed the respective Board examination in the year of admission should be taken into consideration, and not the number of the students who have passed in earlier years, who, although may be eligible, their number should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of distribution of seats between the students of different Boards on pro rata basis. 18. Although the petitioner, by way of an amendment further prayed for compensation for not following the Rule 10 literally, we do not propose to extend the scope of this litigation for which we entertained the same. We, accordingly, refuse such prayer. 19. This writ-application is disposed of with the above directions. There will be no order as to costs. 19.1 In view of the above order passed in the main writ-application, the Civil Application does not survive, and it stands disposed of accordingly. 20. We record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate appearing as amicus curiae in this matter.