Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 874 (GAU)

Jyotima Mazumder Das v. State of Assam

2014-09-15

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. SP Das, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3 (Labour and Employment Department, Government of Assam) and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) (respondent No. 4). Also heard Mr. J. Islam, learned Counsel for the intervenors. The core issue which arises for consideration in this litigation is the interpretation of Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the Assam Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1993 which deals with the cadre of Senior Instructor forming part of Assam Craftsmen Training Service. In other words, the short point which arises for consideration in this writ proceeding is whether the post of "Instructor" as appearing in Rule 3 (1)(c)(iv) of the Assam Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1993 includes the post of "Instructor Mathematics" so as to be included in the cadre of "Senior Instructor", thus becoming part of the feeder cadre for promotion to the next higher cadre of "Supervisor". 2. The above question has arisen in the context of the following factual narrative. 3. Petitioners were appointed as Instructor, Mathematics in different Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in the State of Assam following due selection process conducted by APSC. As stated above, they are working as Instructor, Mathematics in different It is in the districts. A statement showing the dates of joining of the petitioners have been furnished in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which is quoted hereunder:-- Petitioner No. Name of the Petitioner Date of Joining 1. Smt. Jyotima Mazumdar Das 05.09.1994 2. Smt. Kabita Bujarbarua 27.01.1984 3. Sri Gautam Chandra Kalita 15.12.1981 4. Sri Dinesh Baishya 04.03.1986 5. Sri Pranab Das 20.04.1981 6. Sri Chabindra Pathak 26.12.1986 7. Sri Pranab Bora 07.09.1987 8. Akibuddin Ahmed 01.04.1992 9. Sri Radhika Ram Medhi 24.12.1982 10. Sri Arnab Kr. Sarkar 21.08.1987 Thus it is evident from the above statement that some of the petitioners have rendered more than 30 years of service as Instructor, Mathematics. Petitioner No. 1 has rendered more than 20 years of service as Instructor, Mathematics and the other petitioners much beyond upto about 34 years. Sri Radhika Ram Medhi 24.12.1982 10. Sri Arnab Kr. Sarkar 21.08.1987 Thus it is evident from the above statement that some of the petitioners have rendered more than 30 years of service as Instructor, Mathematics. Petitioner No. 1 has rendered more than 20 years of service as Instructor, Mathematics and the other petitioners much beyond upto about 34 years. It may be mentioned that as per the APSC advertisements for the post of Instructor, Mathematics following which the petitioners had applied and were subsequently selected and appointed, the qualification prescribed for the post of Instructor, Mathematics was (i) HSLC examination passed or its equivalent, (ii) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (three years course) from any recognized Institute under All India Council of Technical Education or (i) B.Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam made a set of rules called the Assam Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules) to regulate the recruitment and to provide for the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Assam Craftsmen Training Service (Service). Thus, it is evident that barring the petitioner No. 1, the other petitioners were appointed as Instructor, Mathematics much prior to framing of the 1993 Rules. 5. Rule 3 of the 1993 Rules provides the different cadres which comprises the Service. Grade I (Gazetted post) includes the cadres of Director and Joint Director. Grade II (Gazetted post) includes Deputy Director, Principal (Senior), Assistant Director, Principal (Junior)/Vice Principal. Grade in (Non-Gazetted posts) includes Superintendent, Foreman, Supervisor, Senior Instructor and Junior Instructor. 6. In this case we are concerned with the cadre of Senior Instructor as mentioned in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv). Though reference to this provision would be made more in detail in the subsequent stage of the judgment, suffice it to say at this stage that as per the said provision, the cadre of Senior Instructor has been defined as comprising the posts of Instructor (Senior) (Technical), Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) Instructor, Related Instruction and Senior Instructor, Drawing. 7. As per Rule 4, the strength of each cadre in the Service as on the date of commencement of the 1993 Rules is mentioned in Schedule I. Under Rule 5(d), the cadre of Supervisor is required to be filled up 100% by way of promotion. 7. As per Rule 4, the strength of each cadre in the Service as on the date of commencement of the 1993 Rules is mentioned in Schedule I. Under Rule 5(d), the cadre of Supervisor is required to be filled up 100% by way of promotion. However, if the appointing authority is satisfied that there is no suitable officer in the Service available for such promotion, he may in consultation with the APSG fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment for good and sufficient reasons. Under Rule 11(c), 100% of the vacancies in the cadre of Supervisor shall be filled up by way of promotion subject to the eventuality as mentioned above. Under Rule 12, promotion to the cadre of Supervisor is from the cadre of Senior Instructor. A member of the Service shall be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Supervisor if he has rendered four years of service in the cadre of Senior Instructor. General procedure of promotion is laid down in Rule 13. Rule 15 provides for constitution of Selection Board for the purpose of promotion. As per Rule 24 gradation list shall be prepared cadre-wise every year. 8. In Schedule-I to the 1993 Rules, below the cadre of Supervisor, the cadre of Instructor (Senior) is mentioned carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1375-30-1475-40-1635-50-1885-EB-50-2035-60-2595-80-2875-100-3375 pm. Qualifications and experience for direct recruitment to different posts are mentioned in Schedule-II. For Instructor (Senior) Technical, the qualification prescribed is Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile/Electronic Engineering from a recognized Board/Institution or equivalent qualification with one year teaching experience desirable or same as prescribed for the post of Supervisor i.e. HSLC passed or equivalent examination from a recognized Board/Institution and should have passed National Apprenticeship Certificate or National Trade Certificate in the trade concerned with ten years industrial teaching experience. 9. On an understanding that the post of Instructor, Mathematics and similar other posts of Instructor were not encadred in the 1993 Rules thereby not providing any avenue for promotion to the Instructors in Mathematics and other subjects, petitioners and others had represented before the authorities in this regard including the Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam, the departmental head of the ITIs. Demand was made that they should be treated as belonging to the cadre of Senior Instructor for all purposes thereby entitling them to a consideration for promotion to the cadre of Supervisor. Demand was made that they should be treated as belonging to the cadre of Senior Instructor for all purposes thereby entitling them to a consideration for promotion to the cadre of Supervisor. In this connection, a meeting was held on 28.01.2011 in the Directorate of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam. A number of decisions were taken in the said meeting, including the following decisions- "(1) Instructors drawing senior grade scale of pay are Senior Instructors comprising English Language Instructor, Instructor (Mathematics), Instructor Social Studies, Senior Instructor Drawing, Related Instructor, Instructors (Senior) Technical; (2) There should be two gradation lists of Senior Instructors, one for Instructors in English, Social Studies and Mathematics and the other for diploma holder Instructors as well as promotee Senior Instructors; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (5) 50% vacancies of Supervisor should be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Senior Instructor, Social Studies, Mathematics, English while the remaining 50% should be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Senior Instructor diploma holders and Senior Instructor (promotees)." 10. It appears that the above decision taken on 28.01.2011 was put to challenge before this Court in WP(C) No. 877/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.08.2011 by providing that the Recruitment Rules would hold the field and that the provisions of the Recruitment Rules should not be diluted by way of any executive decision. 11. Thereafter, on 27.06.2012 separate gradation lists for Senior Instructors and Junior Instructors were prepared. Names of the petitioners were not included in the gradation list of Senior Instructor. 12. At that stage, petitioners moved this Court by filing the present writ petition questioning the gradation list and seeking a direction to the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the gradation list of Senior Instructor by preparing a fresh gradation list 13. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the whole controversy has arisen because of the loose and casual use/interchange of use of words while describing various posts which comes under the cadre of Senior Instructor under Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the whole controversy has arisen because of the loose and casual use/interchange of use of words while describing various posts which comes under the cadre of Senior Instructor under Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules. He submits that the cadre is Senior Instructor which comprises of several posts such as Instructor (Senior) (Technical), Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) Instructor, Related Instruction and Senior Instructor, Drawing. The cadre of Senior Instructor is the feeder cadre for the next higher cadre of Supervisor. As per the 1993 Rules, the cadre of Supervisor is required to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from the feeder cadre of Senior Instructor unless suitable candidates are not available. He submits that petitioners who are serving as Instructor, Mathematics in the It is are already suffering stagnation in service as not a single promotion has been offered to them though petitioners have rendered service in the same post for long years ranging from 20 to 34 years. It could not have been the intention of the rule making authority to have entirely excluded the post of Instructor, Mathematics and such other posts such as Instructor, English or Instructor, Social Studies etc. from the purview of the 1993 Rules altogether. Therefore, Rule 3 (1)(c)(iv) which mentions the cadre of Senior Instructor forming a part of the Service should be interpreted in a rational and logical manner so that injustice is not done to any person or persons holding a post in the Service. Keeping that in mind, the word "Instructor" appearing in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) should be read and understood to mean Instructor, Mathematics or Instructor, English or Instructor, Social Studies etc. Any other interpretation will be illogical as it will exclude the petitioners holding the post of Instructor, Mathematics from the purview of the 1993 Rules thereby completely extinguishing any scope for promotion of the petitioners to the next higher cadre of Supervisor. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a number of Supreme Court judgments which will be referred to in the subsequent part of the judgment. 14. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Labour and Employment Department has opposed the submissions made by Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a number of Supreme Court judgments which will be referred to in the subsequent part of the judgment. 14. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Labour and Employment Department has opposed the submissions made by Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, he submits that the gradation lists of Senior Instructors and Junior Instructors were prepared cadre-wise as per provisions contained in the 1993 Rules. He submits that the post of Instructor, Mathematics or Instructor, Social Studies or Instructor, English Language do not belong to the cadre of Senior Instructor. Consequently there is no provision for their promotion to the next higher post as per the 1993 Rules. Though some decision was taken at the administrative level to provide for promotion to Instructor, Mathematics and other equivalent posts, the same was disapproved by the High Court. According to him, unless the 1993 Rules are amended providing for promotion from Instructor, Mathematics to Supervisor, case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Supervisor cannot be considered as there is no provision for such promotion in the 1993 Rules. He submits that the language used in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules is very clear and unambiguous. The cadre of Senior Instructor does not include the post of Instructor, Mathematics. When the language is clear and unambiguous, no other interpretation of the Rule would be warranted. In this connection, Mr. Das has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court reported in 1997 (1) GLT 600 (Man Sarovar Hotel v. Telecom District Manager, Kamrup Telecom District, Guwahati & Ors.) and 2005 (3) GLT 48 (Virendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.). 15. A group of applicants working as Instructor (Senior) Technical working in the It is and whose names were included in the gradation list dated 27-06-2012 had filed two applications in the pending writ petition seeking their impleadment as respondents in the writ petition. They stated that since their names figured in the gradation list of Instructor (Senior) Technical, they were awaiting consideration for their promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor. Any interference in the gradation list would cause prejudice to them. They stated that since their names figured in the gradation list of Instructor (Senior) Technical, they were awaiting consideration for their promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor. Any interference in the gradation list would cause prejudice to them. On 11-08-2014, this Court passed an order that since the writ petition was at the stage of final hearing, prayer for impleadment at such a belated stage could not be entertained. However, to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the applicants, they were given leave to make their submissions at the time of hearing. Accordingly written argument was submitted by the applicants through their Counsel J. Islam. A distinction is sought to be made between the post of Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) and Instructor, Mathematics. It is contended that the post of Instructor, Mathematics is a non-technical post and cannot be equated with the post of Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) which is a technical post. It is contended that "Instructor Mathematics (Technical)" is one post. There is no post by the nomenclature of "Instructor" in the It is of Assam. Duties and responsibilities of Senior Instructor, Mathematics and Instructor, Mathematics are not the same. Qualifications for the two posts are also different. While in the case of the former, it is diploma in the concerned subject with one year teaching experience as desirable qualification, the requisite qualification for the post of Instructor, Mathematics is B.Sc. Attempt made by the authority to act contrary to the 1993 Rules by treating the two posts at par was disapproved by the High Court. There is no error in the preparation of the gradation list of Senior Instructor (Technical). Post of Instructor, Mathematics is an ex-cadre post and is not the feeder post for promotion to the post of Supervisor. Post of Instructor, Mathematics being an ex-cadre post, there cannot be a combined gradation list of Senior Instructor (Technical) and Instructor, Mathematics. 16. Arguments advanced, both oral and written, have been considered. 17. The core issue which arises for consideration in this case, as has already been noticed at the very beginning of the judgment and which stood fortified in the course of the hearing, is whether the post of Instructor, Mathematics in which post the petitioners are serving or similar other posts such as Instructor, Social Studies or Instructor, English etc. 17. The core issue which arises for consideration in this case, as has already been noticed at the very beginning of the judgment and which stood fortified in the course of the hearing, is whether the post of Instructor, Mathematics in which post the petitioners are serving or similar other posts such as Instructor, Social Studies or Instructor, English etc. are included in the cadre of Senior Instructor as mentioned in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, consequences would be that persons holding the post of Instructor, Mathematics like the petitioners or similar other posts such as Instructor, Social Studies or Instructor, English etc. would become eligible for consideration for promotion to the cadre of Supervisor. If the answer is in the negative, they i.e. petitioners and other similarly situated persons would stand excluded from the cadre of Senior Instructor. In other words, they would be holding ex-cadre post of Instructor, Mathematics and would therefore not be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher cadre of Supervisor. The word which becomes crucial or central to this debate is the word "Instructor" both prefixed and suffixed by the punctuation mark 'comma' i.e. "Instructor". 18. To appreciate the above controversy, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules which is as under:-- "3.(1) The Service shall consist of the following Cadres:-- (A) ********************* (B) ********************** (C) Grade III. (Non-Gazetted Posts). (i) Superintendent. (ii) Foreman, Comprising the posts of Sr. Supervisor Millwright Foreman, Surveyor-cum-junior Apprenticeship Adviser. Instructor AVIS, Maintenance Mechanic (Electrical & Mechanical) and Technical Assistant (Senior Scale). (iii) Supervisor. (iv) Senior Instructor, Comprising the posts of Instructor (Sr.) (Technical), Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) Instructor, Related Instruction, Sr. Instructor, Drawing. (v) Junior Instructor, comprising the post of Instructor (Jr.) and Training Mistri." 19. Thus as can be seen from the above, Senior Instructor is a cadre like the immediately higher cadre of Supervisor which comprises of several posts. Cadre denotes a higher or a larger group whereas post denotes a smaller entity forming part of the larger group. Thus, if cadre is the genus, post is the species. As can be seen from the above, the cadre of Senior Instructor comprises of the posts of - "Instructor (Senior) (Technical) Instructor Mathematics (Technical) Instructor Related Instruction Senior Instructor, Drawing." 20. Thus, if cadre is the genus, post is the species. As can be seen from the above, the cadre of Senior Instructor comprises of the posts of - "Instructor (Senior) (Technical) Instructor Mathematics (Technical) Instructor Related Instruction Senior Instructor, Drawing." 20. While petitioners argue that the post of Instructor would include posts like Instructor, Mathematics, respondents would argue that there is no post called Instructor, Mathematics. Respondents would like to read the Rule in such a way that the cadre of Senior Instructor comprises of the following posts - Instructor (Senior) (Technical) Instructor, Mathematics (Technical) Instructor, Related Instruction Senior Instructor, Drawing. 21. Going back to the APSC advertisement dated 15.03.1986 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), it is seen that various posts were advertised such as Instructor, Mathematics, Instructor, Social Studies, Instructor, Motor Mechanic, Instructor, Related Instruction, Instructor, English etc. In so far the post of Instructor, Mathematics is concerned, the qualification prescribed was HSLC passed and three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or Science Graduate (B.Sc.) with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. From the appointment order of petitioner No. 1 it is seen that she was appointed as Mathematics Instructor i.e. Instructor, Mathematics in the scale of pay of Rs. 1375-30-1435-40-1635-50-1885-EB-50-2035-60-2395-80-2875-100-3375/- pm. The same pay scale was given to Senior Instructors. From the Schedule-I to the 1993 Rules it is evident that this is the pay scale provided to the cadre of Instructor (Senior) i.e. Senior Instructor. Qualification prescribed for the two posts are also identical. 22. When the rule making authority framed the 1993 Rules, they were conscious of the fact that some people were holding the post of Instructor, Mathematics. Atleast, a contra presumption cannot be drawn. Therefore, while interpreting the Rule, the two commas pre-fixing and suffixing the word Instructor cannot be ignored; its importance cannot be simply brushed aside. It is a well recognized principle of interpretation of statutes that the legislature or the rule making authority will not unnecessarily use an expression in the statute. The comma used both before and after the word Instructor would indicate that the rule making authority identified Instructor as a separate post within the cadre of Senior Instructor. Instructor can be Instructor, Mathematics or Instructor, Social Studies etc. The comma used both before and after the word Instructor would indicate that the rule making authority identified Instructor as a separate post within the cadre of Senior Instructor. Instructor can be Instructor, Mathematics or Instructor, Social Studies etc. This is the only reasonable and rational way of looking at the rule as any other construction would lead to an absurdity inasmuch as the post of Instructor, Mathematics and such other posts would otherwise be outside the purview of the 1993 Rules as ex-cadre post which would make their service totally stagnant without any scope for promotion. Such an intention cannot be ascribed to the rule making authority. 23. In M.K. Salpekar v. Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari reported in (1988) 4 SCC 21 , the Supreme Court was examining a dispute under CP and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. In that case, the main question which arose for consideration was whether sub-clause (v) of clause 13(3) of the aforesaid Order applied to all buildings whether residential or non-residential or was confined to residential houses only. In that case, the main question which arose for consideration was whether sub-clause (v) of clause 13(3) of the aforesaid Order applied to all buildings whether residential or non-residential or was confined to residential houses only. Relevant provisions of clause 13(3)(v) were as under:-- "13.(1) No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller, (a) give notice to a tenant determining the lease or determining the lease if the lease is expressed to be determinable at his option; or * * * (3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied - * * * (v) that the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, or has left the area for a continuous period of four months and does not reasonably need the house; Explanation- For the purpose of this item the tenant shall be deemed to have secured an alternative accommodation if he owns a residential house in the city or town concerned and if such house is constructed on a site lying vacant on January 1, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of any structure standing on such site; or * * * he shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-clause (1)." Repelling the argument made on behalf of the appellants, the Apex Court held that the punctuation "comma" in the sub-clause after the word "alternative accommodation" and before the rest of the sentence indicates that the last part of the sub-clause namely "and does not reasonably need the house" governs only the second part of the sub-clause. Thus, use of the punctuation mark "comma" reflects a pause between parts of a sentence and indicates a separateness. 24. Again in the case of Grasim Industries Limited v. Collector of Customs reported in (2002) 4 SCC 297 where the Apex Court was dealing with a question relating to classification of an item under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it was clearly held that no words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It was held thus:-- "10. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It was held thus:-- "10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating (sic altering) the statutory provisions. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so, what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided. As stated by the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner "we cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make up deficiencies which are left there". In case of an ordinary word there should be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should be confined to what is necessary for deciding the particular case. This principle is too well settled and reference to a few decisions of this Court would suffice. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India)." 25. This principle is too well settled and reference to a few decisions of this Court would suffice. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India)." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 held that statutory provisions are to be read in a manner so as to do justice to all the parties. That was a case where the Apex Court was considering the interim directions of the High Court for allotment of agricultural land to the displaced persons in lieu of land acquired for construction of dam in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. It was held that any construction leading to confusion and absurdity must be avoided. The Court has to prefer a more reasonable and just interpretation for the reason that there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and un-reasonability/irrationality. Court must take a pragmatic view while interpreting a statutory provision considering the practical aspect of it. Therefore, the Court has to interpret a provision giving it a construction agreeable to reason and justice to all parties concerned, avoiding injustice and mischievous consequences. The Supreme Court held as follows:-- "76. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (12th Edn., 2010), the learned author has stated as under: " In selecting out of different interpretations 'the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things'.....A construction that results in hardship, serious inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency or uncertainty and friction in the system which the statute purports to regulate has to be rejected and preference should be given to that construction which avoids such results." 77. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan this Court held as under : "24....... Though the function of the courts is only to expound the law and not to legislate, nonetheless the legislature cannot be asked to sit to resolve the difficulties in the implementation of its intention and the spirit of the law. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to mould or creatively interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statute. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to mould or creatively interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statute. 25. In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., at p.229, the following passage is found: 'Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence'. * * * 31.......but to winch up the legislative intent, it is permissible for courts to take into account of the ostensible purpose and object and the real legislative intent. Otherwise, a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislature inane". 78. Therefore, an interpretation having a social justice mandate is required. The statutory provision is to be read in a manner so as to do justice to all the parties. Any construction leading to confusion and absurdity must be avoided. The court has to find out the legislative intent and eschew the construction which will lead to absurdity and give rise to practical inconvenience or make the provision of the existing law nugatory. The construction that results in hardship, serious inconvenience or anomaly or gives unworkable and impracticable results, should be avoided. (Vide Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala and Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.). 79. A reasonable construction agreeable to justice and reason is to be preferred to an irrational construction. The court has to prefer a more reasonable and just interpretation for the reason that there is always a presumption against the lawmaker intending injustice and unreasonability/irrationality, as opposed to a literal one and which does not fit in with the scheme of the Act. In case the natural meaning leads to mischievous consequences, it must be avoided by accepting the alternative construction. [Vide Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar and Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India.] 80. The Court has not only to take a pragmatic view while interpreting a statutory provision, but must also consider the practical aspect of it. (Vide Union of India v. Pranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) 81. [Vide Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar and Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India.] 80. The Court has not only to take a pragmatic view while interpreting a statutory provision, but must also consider the practical aspect of it. (Vide Union of India v. Pranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) 81. In Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai this Court held: "20.....the purpose of [the] law is to prevent brooding sense of injustice. It is not the words of the law but the spirit and internal sense of it that makes the law meaningful." 82. In Workmen v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate it has been held thus: "9......the definition clause must be read in the context of the subject matter and scheme of the Act, and consistently with me objects and other provisions of the Act," 83. In Sk. Gulfan v. Sanat Kumar Ganguli it has been held as follows : "19.....Often enough, in interpreting a statutory provision, it becomes necessary to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is intended to achieve. That is why in deciding the true scope and effect of the relevant words in any statutory provision, the context in which the words occur, the object of the statute in which the provision is included, and the policy underlying the statute assume relevance and become material." 84. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Justice means justice between both the parties. Justice is the virtue, by which the court gives to a man what is his due. Justice is an act of rendering what is right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. The underlying idea is of balance. It means to give to each his right. Therefore, while tempering the justice with mercy, the court has to be very conscious that it has to do justice in exact conformity with the statutory requirements. 85. Thus, it is evident from the above referred law, that the court has to interpret a provision giving it a construction agreeable to reason and justice to all parties concerned, avoiding injustice, irrationality and mischievous consequences. The interpretation so made must not produce unworkable and impracticable results or cause unnecessary hardship, serious inconvenience or anomaly. The court also has to keep in mind the object of the legislation." 26. The interpretation so made must not produce unworkable and impracticable results or cause unnecessary hardship, serious inconvenience or anomaly. The court also has to keep in mind the object of the legislation." 26. The two decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents, in the opinion of the Court, would be of no assistance. It is a settled position in law that when the language of a statutory rule is clear, purposive construction of a statute is not be a resorted to. When the rule making authority clearly conveys the intention in plain words without any ambignity, the Court would not give its own meaning which will amount to rewriting of the provisions of the rules. Object of interpretation is to give effect to the meaning which is conveyed by the statute unless the grammatical construction leads to any absurdity. Coming to the impugned provision in the present case, it is quite apparent that the language employed is neither clear nor unambiguous. This has been further compounded by the executive authorities by loosely using the words while describing the posts mentioned in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules. Acceptance of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents would lead to hardship and prejudice to a class of employees, if not leading to absurdity. It cannot be presumed that the rule making authority had intended to exclude the post of Instructor, Mathematics and similar other posts from the purview of the 1993 Rules so as to deny them any scope of promotion for all times to come. Rather, the presumption would always be to the contrary. In that view of the matter and following the Apex Court judgments referred to above, the interpretation which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners is found to be more acceptable, being in tune with the scheme of the 1993 Rules. 27. That being the position and having regard to the discussions made above, it is hereby declared that the post of Instructor, Mathematics and such other similar posts would be included in the cadre of Senior Instructor as appearing in Rule 3(1)(c)(iv) of the 1993 Rules and following Rule 24 of the said Rules, the respondents shall now prepare a gradation list containing the names of all members of the Assam Craftsmen Training Service who are in the cadre of Senior Instructor. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost. Petition allowed.