Supreme Court of India
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALALversusCHAUDHARI DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 913
- Decided
- 6 August 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
The appellant satisfies the qualification for Reader in Public Administration; the phrase "relevant subject" must be read into the qualification, and the High Court judgment is set aside.
Summary
The Chaudhary Devi Lal University advertised for a Reader in Public Administration and appointed Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal, who holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science. A lecturer challenged the appointment, arguing that the appellant lacked the required qualification in the "relevant subject" under UGC regulations. The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the appointment, relying on Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's decision that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct disciplines. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Political Science and Public Administration are inter‑related and interchangeable, that the phrase "relevant subject" must be read into the qualification for a Reader, and that the Panda decision is not a binding precedent. Consequently, the High Court order was vacated and the appellant's appointment upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate with a Master's and Ph.D. in Political Science satisfies the qualification requirement for the post of Reader in Public Administration under UGC regulations.
- Whether the expression "relevant subject" should be implied into the qualification criteria for the post of Reader.
- Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court was correct in setting aside the appointment based on Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's decision.
- Whether Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's decision constitutes a binding precedent.
Legislation cited
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 2, s. 3
Subjects
University appointmentReader postPublic AdministrationPolitical ScienceUGC regulationsStatutory interpretationMimansa principlesAnusanga principlePrecedentRelevant subject
Judgment
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 992
~
A DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL
v.
CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
(CIVIL APPEAL No. 4908 of 2008)
AUGUST 6, 2008
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
Education - Universities - Appointment/Selection - Post
of Reader in Public Administration - Appointment of person
c possessing academic qualification in discipline of Political
Science - Challenge to - Appointment/selection set aside by
High Court relying on Dr; Bhanu Prasad's case that Political
Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate
subjects - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Apply-
ing the Anusanga principle, expression 'relevant subject'
D
should be inserted in the qualification for post of Reader after
words "at the Master's degree level" - It cannot be said that it
was not necessary for appointee to have Master's degree in
the relevant·subject for appointment to the post of Reader-
However, academic experts regarded Political Science and
E Public Administration to be inter-related and inter-changeable
subjects - Thus, this Court should not sit in appeal over their
opinion - More so, appointee selected by selection commit-
tee of eminent experts- Furthermore, Dr. Bhanu Prasad's case
cannot be treated as a precedent, since it is not based on any
·F reasoning but on concession - Mimansa Rules of lnterpreta-
·~
tion - Anusanga principle - Precedents.
Interpretation of statues - Mimansa Rules of lnterpreta-
tion - Anusanga principle - Discussed.
G Precedents - Precedential value of decision - Held:
Decision of Court is a precedent if it lays down some principle
of Jaw supported by reasons - Mere casual observations or
1
directions without laying down any principle of law and without
giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.
H 992
OR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 993
)' UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
The respondent issued an advertisement for direct A
recruitment to the post of Reader in Public Administra-
tion. Appellant, a post graduate degree and Ph.D in Politi-
cal Science applied for the post and was selected. Re-
spondent No. 2, Lecturer in Public Administration also
applied for the post but was not selected. Respondent B
No. 3 filed writ petition challenging the appointment of
appellant since the appellant did not possess the requi-
site qualification for the post of Reader in Public Adminis-
tration. High Court relying on Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's
case that Public Administration and Political Science are c
distinct and separate disciplines and the UGC Regulation
that for appointment to the post of Reader a candidate
would have to be quali~ied in the relevant subject, set aside
the selection and appointment of the appellant. Hence the
present appeal.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Per Katju, J:
1.1 The ordinary principle of interpretation is that
words should neither be added nor deleted from a statu- E
tory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the
rule where the alternative lies between either supplying
by implication words which appear to have been acciden-·
tally omitted, or adopting astrict construction which leads
to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all F
)
meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply
the words. [Para 13] [1003 G D]
Siraj-ul-Haq vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, UP AIR
1959 SC 198; State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohammad AIR
1981 SC 1744; Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs. Ra nip Nagarpalika G
AIR 2000 SC 135; Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rail-
tr way vs. T R. Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216 - referred to.
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.
Singh, 9th edn. pp 71-76 - referred to.
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S. C.R.
A 1.2 The Mimansa principles were regularly used by
great jurist for interpreting the legal texts. In Mimansa,
casus omissus is known as adhyahara. The adhyahara
principle permits to add words to a legal text. However,
the superiority of the Mimansa Principles· over Maxwell's
B Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that Max-
well does not go into further detail and does not mention
the sub-categories coming under the general category of
casus omissus. In the Mimansa system, the general cat-
egory of adhyahara has under it several sub-categories,
e.g., anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. [Para 20]
C [1003 CD, 1005-B]
1.3 ·The anusanga principle or elliptical extension
states that an expression occurring in one ctause is of-
ten meant also for a neighbouring clause, and it is only
for economy that it is only mentioned in the former;
0
, Anusanga principle has further sub-categorization. If a
clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be
read into a previous sentence it is a case of Tadapakarsha,
but when it is vice-versa it is case of Tadutkarsha. [Para
22] [1005 E F]
E
Beni Prasad v. Hardai Bibi 1892 ILR 14 All 67 (FB) -
referred to.
'Mimansa Rules of Interpretation' by K.L. Sarkar; Jaimini
2, 2, 16; History of the Dharmashastra' byP V. Kane Vol. V, Pt.
F II, Ch. XXIX and Ch. XXX, pp. 1282-1351 - referred to.
1 ~4 In the instant case, the Anusanga principle of
Mimansa should be utilized and the expression 'relevant
subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for
the post of Reader after the words "at the Master's de-
G gree level". It cannot be said that in the UGC Regulation
for the post of Lecturer the requirement was a Master's
degree in the relevant subject, whereas the expression
'in the relevant subject' is not mentioned in the qualifica-
tions for the post of Reader; and it was not necessary for,
H the appellant to have a Master's degree in the relevant
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 995
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
subject for appointment to the post of Reader. To take a A
contrary view would lead to a strange situation as that
would mean that a person who has an M.A. degree in
Music or History, is qualified to be appointed as Reader
in Political Science. [Paras 11, 12 and 26] [1006 F, 1003-B]
2.1 On a clarification sought from the UGC whether a B
candidate who possesses a Master's degree in Public Ad-
ministration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political
Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter to the Reg-
istrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subject of
Political Science and Public Administration are inter- c
changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who pos-
sesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible
as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. [Para 31]
[1007 F-H]
2.2 A large number of universities in this country have D
a single department for both the subjects of Political Sci-
ence and Public Administration, which demonstrates that
the subjects Political Science and Public Administration
are inter-changeable and inter-related. Political Science
is the mother subject and Public Administration is the off- E
shoot of the same. [Para 32] [1008 B]
2.3 It is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal
over the opinion of the academic experts who are of the
view that Political Science and Public Administration are
> inter-related and inter-changeable subjects, and hence a F
candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Ad-
ministration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political
Science and vice-versa. A large number of persons hav-
ing qualifications in the inter-changeable/inter-related
subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/Lee-
turers and are continuing as such in various colleges and G
r universities in the State. [Para 33] [1008 C to E]
- 2.4 In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-
university before the High Court, it has been specifically
stated therein that Public Administration is one of the H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A branches of Political Science, and the appellant was se-
lected by a selection committee consisting of eminent
experts after evaluating his qualifications and work. [Pa~a
34] [1008 F]
Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. 2001 r-
B (8) SCC 546; University of Mysore vs. G.D. Govinda Rao, AIR
1965 SC 491; Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain JT 1991
(4) SC 75; Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean, B. J. Medical
College and Ors. JT 1992(1) SC 583; Rajender Prasad
Mathur vs. Karnataka University and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1448;
C PM. Bhargava and Ors. vs. U. G. C. and Anr. 2004 (6) SCC
661; Chairman, J and K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik and Ors (2000) 3 SCC 59, Varanaseya San-
skrit Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. vs. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi &
Anr. 1977 (1) SCC 279; Medical Council of India vs. Sarang
D . and Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 427; Bhagwan Singh and Anr. vs. State
of Punjab and Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 - referred to.
3.1 The decision of a Court is a precedent if it lays
down some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere
casual observations or directions without laying down any
E principle of law and without giving reasons does not
amount to a precedent. [Paras 38] [1009 E]
3.2 The decision of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad
Panda's case cannot be read as a Enclid's formula or
F treated as a precedent, since it has not given any reason
for holding that Political Science and Public Administra-
tion are distinct and separate subjects, and since the
afores~id decision was given on a concession. [Paras 45]
[1012 E,F]
G State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172;
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr. "1
2003 (7) SCC 197; State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
AIR 1968 SC 647; Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors. 1987 (1) SCC 213; BhavnagarUniversityvs. Palitana
H Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd 2003 (2) SC 11.1; Bharat Petroleum Car-
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 997
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR.
I"'
poration Ltd. and Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani and Anr. AIR 2004 A
SC 4778; Or. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor,
Sambhalpur University 2001 (8) SCC 532 - referred to.
4. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside. [Para 46]
[1012 G] B
-,
Case Law Reference
AIR 1959 SC 198 Referred to. Para 14
AIR 1981 SC 1744 Referred to. Para 15
AIR 2000 SC 135 Referred to. Para 16
c
AIR 1975 SC 2216 Referred to. Para 16
1892 ILR 14 All 67 Referred to. Para 18
2001 (8) sec 546 Referred to. Para 29
AIR 1965 SC 491 Referred to. Para ,,29 D
JT 1991 (4) SC 75 Referred to. Para 30
"" JT 1992 (1) SC 583 Referred to. Para 30
AIR 1986 SC 1448 Referred to. Para 30
2004 (6) sec 661 Referred to. Para 30 E
(2000) 3 sec 59 Referred to. Para 30
1977 (1) sec 219 Referred to. Para 30
2001 (8) sec 427 Referred to. Para 30
1999 (9) sec 573 Referred to. Para 30 F
> 1999 (6) sec 112 Referred to. Para 39
2003 (7) sec 191 Referred to. Para 40
AIR 1968 SC 647 Referred to. Para 41
1987 (1) sec 213 Referred to. Para 42 G
2003 (2) SC 111 Referred to. Para 43
AIR 2004 SC 4778 Referred to. Para 44
.,..
2001 (8) sec 532 Referred to. Para 45
Per Kabir, J (Concurring): H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. I
.
>if
A 1.1 The recruitment Rules followed by the University I-
clearly indicates that in order to be appointed as Lecturer ',.
in a particular discipline a candidate must have a post-
graduate deg tee in the relevant S':Jbject. On the other hand,
for appointment to the post of Reader such a condition
B has not been specified. In fact, in Regulation 2 it has been
generally indicated that no person shall be appointed to "(
a teaching post in the University or in any institution, in-
eluding constituent or affiliated colleges recognized un-
,..__
der the UGC Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to be a
c University under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if
he/she does not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifica-
tions for the appropriate subject. [Para 7] [1014 E-G]
1.2 The omission in the Regulations cannot be said
to be unintentional or a case of casus omissus. The ex-
D pression 'appropriate subject' was intended to cover the
post of Reader and once the expert bodies had indicated
that the appellant who held a post-graduate degree in -;--
Political Science was eligible to be appointed to the post
of Reader in Public Administration and had been rightly
,:
E appointed to such post, it is normally not for the Courts
to question such opinion, unless it has specialised know!-
edge of the subject. [Para 8] [1014, H, 1015, A]
1.3 In deciding Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case, this
Court did not have the benefit of the views of the Univer-
F sity and the University Grants Commission and the con-
clusion was arrived at on the basis of a personal under-
standing of Public Administration and Political Science. '
The decision does not reflect the aforesaid position and
also does not indicate the reason why and on what basis
G such a decision holding Public Administration and Politi-
cal Science t o be two distinct disciplines had been ar-
rived at. [Paras 5 and 9] [1014 C-0; 1015 B]
1
Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambhalpur
University 2001 (8) SCC 532 - distinguished. ...
H
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 999
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
Case Law Reference A
2001 (8) SCC 532 Distinguished. Para 5
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4908
of 2008
From the Judgment and final Order dated 21/9/2006 of 8
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
No. 6642 of 2005
P.S. Patwalia, Rupansh Purit, Harikesh Singh and Kamal
Mohan Gupta for the Appellant. c
Nidhesh Gupta, Tarun Gupta, Deepak Goel, S. Janani,
Amitesh Kumar, Gopal Singh, Jasbir Singh Malik, R.K. Tripathi,
Rahul Tyagi, K.P. Singh and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respon-
dents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judg-
ment and order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court of Punjab E
and Haryana in CWP No. 6642 of 2005.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. The short question in this appeal is whether the appel-
lant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment F
to the post of Reader in Public Ad ministration in Chaudhary Devi
Lal University, Sirsa.
5. The respondent-university issued an advertisement for
direct recruitment for various posts, including the post of Reader G
in Public Administration. The appellant herein, claiming to be
fully eligible and qualified for the post of Reader in Public Ad-
ministration, applied for the aforementioned post on the pre-
scribed format. A Selection Committee interviewed the appel-
lant on 18.7.2004 as per the call letter dated 8.7.2004. The ap- H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A pellant was selected as Reader and he joined as such on
~.
·-.
4.4.200.5. I
l-
6. Respondent No. 2 herein, Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who
was a Lecturer in PublicAdministration had also applied forthe
i
post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the-appel- 'I"
B lant was selected. Hence, respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition ~
in the Punjab & Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642/2005
in which he alleged that the appellant herein, Dr. Rajbir Singh
Dalal, did not po_ssess the requisite qualification for the post of
Reader in Public Administration. It was alleged in the writ peti-
c tion that the appellant was an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Sci-
ence and not in Public Administration. Hence, it was alleged
that the appellant was not eligible for being selected and ap-
1'--
pointed as Reader in Public Administration.
)
7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the
D
University, it was stated that Public Administration is one of the I
branches of Political Science, and hence the appellant herein
was rightly selected by the Selection Committee consisting of
~ F
eminent experts after evaluating .his academic qualifications.
E 8. In the counter affidavit filed.by the app~llant herein be-
fore the High Court. it was admitted that the appellant had his
qualification from the discipline of Political Science, but it was
asserted that he was subjected to a process of selection be- ~
fore an expert committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor of L
F the University, Dr. L. Goyal, Professor of Public Administration,
Punjab University and Dr. R.K. Tiwari, a Professor in Indian In-
-4._
stitute of Public Administration, New Delhi. 1--
,._
9. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated· ii
21.9.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside th_e selection
G and appointment of the appellant. The High Court relied on the
decision of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chan- F
eel/or, Sambalpur University (2001) 8 SCC 532 .in which it was
observed that the subjects of Public Administration and Politi- 1
cal Science are distinct and separate and a person possess-
H ing the academic qualification in the discipline of Political Sci-
DR RAJ BIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAU DHAR I DEVI LAL 1001
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
ence could not be appointed in the discipline of Public Admin- A
istration. The High Court also relied on Regulation 2 of the UGC
Regulations which states as under :
"2. Qualification:
No persons shall be appointed to a teaching post in university B
or in any institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges
recognized under clause (f) of section 2 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to
be a university under section 3 of the said Act in a subject if
he/she does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications
for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Annexure. C
Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications
can only be made by the University Grants Commission in a
particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or
enough number of candidates are not available with NET
0
qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if
allowed, would be given based on sound qualification and
would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject
for the specified period. No individual applications would be
entertained).
E
Provided further that these regulations shall not be
applicable to such cases where selections of the
candidates having had the then requisite minimum
qualification as were existing at that time through
duly constituted Selection Committee for making
appointments to the teaching posts have been made F
prior to the enforcement of these regulations.
1. 3. 2. Reader
Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent
published work. In addition to these, candidates when join G
from outside the university system, shall also possess at
least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grad~ of B in the 7
point scale with latter grades, 0, A, B, C, D, E and Fat the
Master's degree level.
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. >=
~ ,
A Five years of experience of teaching and/or research
excluding the period spent for obtaining the research
degrees and has made one mark in the areas of
scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, ·
l
contribution to educational innovation, design of new ·'
B courses and curricula. r " ~
1.3.3. Lecturer
Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an
equivalent' grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades,
0, A, B, D, D, E' and F at the Master's degree level, in the
c '
relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent ~
degree from a foreign university. '
I
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should
have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted
D by the UGC, CSIR, or similar test accredited by the UGC.
~
Note:- Net shall remain the compulsory requirement for
appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph. D.
f
degree. However, the candidate who have completed M. Phil.
., Degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned
subject up to 31 51 December, 1993 are exempted from ;I=.
E
appearing in the NET examination."
t
10. The High Court was of the view that a person is not .......
j
qualified for appointment as Reader unless he has qualifica-
tion in the appropriate subject. The High Court was also of the ~
F viewthat since the appellant had a qualification in the discipline -.\
of Political Science he could not be appointed. in the discipline
of Public Administration. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed
by the appellant in this Court.(__
11. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for 'the ap- k
I
G pellant submitted that in the UGC Regulation for the post of Lee-
turer the requirement was a Master's degree in the relevant· . ..,
subject, whereas the expression 'in the relevant subject' is not
mentioned in the gualifications for the post of Reader. Hence,
he submitted that it was notflecessary for the appellant to have
H a Master's degree in the relevant subject for appointment to the ~
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1003
~ UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
post of Reader. We regret we cannot agree. In our opinion, the A
words 'in the relevant subject' has to be read into the qualifica-
tion for the post of Reader also.
12. To take a contrary view would lead to a strange situ a-
tion as that would mean that a person who has an M.A. degree
..,... in Music or History, is qualified to be appointed as Reader in B
Political Science.
13. No doubt, the ordinary principle of interpretation is that
words should neither be added nor deleted from a statutory pro-
vision. However, there are some exceptions to the rule where c
the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a
strict construction which leads to absurdity or deprives certain
existing words of all meaning, and in this situation it is permis-
sible to supply the words (vide Principles of Statutory lnterpre-
D
tation by Justice G.P. Singh, 91h edn. Pp 71-76) .
.,..
14. Thus, in Siraj-ul-Haq vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf,
UP AIR 1959 SC 198, the Supreme Court interpreted the
words 'any person interested in a Waqf' in section 5(2) of the
U.P. Muslims Waqfs Act, 1936 as meaning 'any person inter- E
ested in what is held to be a waqf'.
15. Similarly, in State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohammad
AIR 1981SC1744, while construing section 4(1) of the Kerala
Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 the Supreme Court inter-
preted the words 'any debt due before the commencement of F
> this Act to any banking company' as meaning 'any debt due at
and before the commencement of this Act'.
16. Similarly, in Gujarat Composite Ltd. vs. Ranip
Nagarpalika AIR 2000 SC 135, the Supreme Court interpreted
G
the words 'Grog Minerals' to mean 'Grog & Minerals'. In Divi-
sional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs. T R.
~
Challappan AIR 1975 SC 2216, the Supreme Court interpreted
·~ the words 'any party to an arbitration agreement' occurring in
section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to mean 'a person
H
1004. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R
,.,.
A who is alleged to be a party to an arbitration agreement'.
17. We may also consider the matter from our traditional \-
principles of interpretation known as the 'Mimansa Rules of
Interpretation'.
B 18. It is deeply regrettable that in our Courts of law lawyers ..,,
quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa
Principles of interpretation. Most lawyers would not have even
heard of their existence. Today our so-called educated people .
are largely ignorant about the great intellectual achievements
c of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury which they have I
bequeathed us. The Mimansa Principles of interpretation is part ..--
of that great intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that ~
apart from the reference to these principles in the judgment of
Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court,
in Beni Prasad v. Hardai Bibi, 1892 ILR 14 All 67 (FB), over a
D
hundred years ago and in son:ie judgments of one of us (M.
.....
Katju, J.) there has been almost no utilization of these principles
even in our own country. Many of the Mimansa Principles are
rational and scientific and can be utilized in the legal field (see
in this connection K.L. Sarkar's 'Mimansa Rules of lnterpreta-
E tion' which is a collection of Tagore Law Lectures delivered in
1905 containing the best exposition of these principles in En-
glish; Most other books on Mimansa are in Sanskrit).
19. The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, as laid down
F by Jaimini around the 5th century B.C. in his sutras and as ex-
plained by Sabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, Mandan Mishra,
Shalignath, Parthasarathy Mishra, Apadeva, Shree Bhat
Shankar, etc. were regularly used by our renowned jurists like
Vijneshwara (author of Mitakshara), Jimutvahana (author of ,
G · Dayabhaga), Nanda Pandit (author of Dattaka Mimansa), etc. •
whenever there they found any conflict between the various I
I
Smritis, e.g., Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti, or ambiguity,
ellipse or absurdity in any Smriti. Thus, the Mimansa principles
were our traditional system of interpretation of legal texts. Al-
H though originally they were created for interpreting religious texts
DR RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1005
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J]
'+-
pertaining to the Yagya (sacrifice), they were so rational and A
logical that gradually they came to be utilized in law, philosophy,
grammar, etc., that is, they became of universal application. Thus,
Shankaracharya has used the Mimansa Adhikaranas (prin-
ciples) in his bhashya on the Vedanta sutras.
20. The Mimansa principles were regularly used by our B
"'' great jurists for interpreting legal texts (see also in this connec-
tion P. V. Kane's' History of the Dharmashastra', Vol. V, Pt." 11,
Ch. XXIX and Ch. XXX, pp. 1282-1351).
21. In Mimansa, casus omissus is known as adhyahara. c
The adhyahara principle permits us to add words to a legal text.
However, the superiority of the Mimansa Principles over
Maxwell's Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that
Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention
the sub-c~tegories coming under the general category of ca-
D
sus omissus. In the Mimansa system, on the other hand, the
gener~I category of adhyahara has under it several sub-catego-
'>"
ries, e.g., anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. Since in this
case we are concerned with the' anusanga principle, we may
explain it in some detail.
E
22. The anusanga principle (or elliptical extension) states
that an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also
for a neighbouring clause, and it is only for economy that it is
only mentioned in the former (see Jaimini 2, 2, 16). The anusanga
principle has a further sub-categorization. If a clause which oc- F
)
curs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous
sentence it is a case of Tadapakarsha, but when it is vice-versa
it is a case of Tadutkarsha.
23. The Anusanga principle of Mimansa was used by
Jimutvahana in the Dayabhaga. Jimutvahana found that there G
is a text of Manu which states:
...
~ "Of a woman married according to the Brahma, Daiva,
Arsha, Gandharva and Prajapartya form, the property shall
go to her husband if she dies without issue. But her
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A property, given to her on her marriage in the form called
Asura, Rakshasa and Paisacha; on her death without
issue shall become the property of her parents."
24. It can be seen that in the second sentence the word
'property' is qualified by the words 'given to her on her mar-
B riage', whereas in the first sentence there is no such qualifica- ,r'
tion. Jimutvahana, using the anusanga principle of Mimansa,
said that the words "given to her on her marriage" should also
be inserted in the first sentence after the word "property", and
hence there also the word 'property' must be interpreted in a
C qualified sense.
25. In the Mitakshara also the anusanga principle of
--- ........- - Mimansa has been used. Yajnavalkya II. 135-136 lays down the
order of succession to the wealth of a person dying sonless.
Yajnavalkya 11.137 deals with succession to property of a forest
0
hermit, an ascetic, or a perpetual Vedic student. The Mitakshara
then holds that Yajnavalkya 11. 138 'samaristinastu samaristi' is "'(_
to be construed as an exception to Yajnavalkya 11. 135, 136 and
understands that the words 'of one dying without having a son'
(grand son or great grand son) are to be supplied before
E Yajnavalkya II. 138 from II. 136, i.e., there is to be anusanga of
the word 'svaryatasya-putrasya'.
26. In our opinion, in the present case, the Anusanga prin-
ciple of Mimansa should be utilized and the expression 'relevant
F subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for the post
of Reader after the words "at the Master's degree level". Hence, ·"
we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect.
27. However, we agree with Mr.Patwalia that since aca-
demic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Ad-
G ministration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to
sit in appeal ove'r the opinion of the experts.
28. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel has pointed out that for ·7<.;
the posts of Reader and Lecturer in Public Administration and
H Political Science, a large number of appointments have been
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARl-.DEVI LAL 1007
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
i'
made in the respondent-university as well as in the higher edu- A
cation department of Haryana treating Political Science and
Public Administration as one discipline. There are a large num-
ber of persons who have an M.A. & Ph.D. degrees in Political
Science and are working as teachers in Public,Administration
department, and vice versa. B
29. In Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 546, following its earlier decision in the Consti-
tution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore vs. C.O.
Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 this Court observed that "nor-
mally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of c
academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the
problems they face than the courts generally are".
30. A similar view has been expressed in several deci-
sions of this Court e.g. Or. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain JT
D
1991 (4) SC 75 (para 9), Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean,
B. J. Medical College& Ors. JT 1992(1) SC 583 (para 8),
..,.,
Rajender Prasad Mathur vs. .Karnataka University & Anr. AIR
=
1986 SC 1448 (para 7) 1986 Supp. SCC 740 (para 7), P.M.
Bhargava & Ors. vs. U. G C. & Anr. 2004 (6) SCC 661 (Para
13), Chairman, J&K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed E
Malik & Ors (2000) 3 SCC 59, Varanaseya Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya & Anr. vs. Or. Rajkishore Tripathi & Anr.
( 1977) 1 SCC 279 (para 12), Medical Council of India vs.
Sarang & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 (para 6), Bhagwan Singh &
Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 (para 6). F
> 31. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from
the UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master's de-
gree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer
in Political Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter dated
G
5.3.1992 to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that
the subject of Political Science and Public Administration are
inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who pos-
.... sesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible as
Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Thus, this is the
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A view of the UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and
the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a
contrary view.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed
out that a large number of universities in this country have a
8 single department for both the subjects of Political Science and
Public Administration, and this also demonstrates that the sub-
jects Political Science and Public Administration are inter-
changeable and inter-related. Political Science is the rT)other
subject and Public Administration is the offshoot of the same.
c
33. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is j:::
I
not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of
the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Pub-
lic Administration are inter-related and inter-changeable sub-
D jects, and hence a candidate who possesses Master's degree
in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in
Political Science and vice-versa. We are told that a large num-
ber of persons having qualifications in the inter-changeable/in-
ter-related subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/
Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and
E universities in the State.
34. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the re-
spondent- university before the High Court, it has been specifi-
cally stated therein that Public Administration is one of the
F branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected
by a selection committee consisting of eminent experts after
evaluating his qualifications and work.
35. As regards the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda
vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University (supra), we have care-"
G fully perused the same. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment it
has been observed:
"ThOL•gh the Department concerned for which the appointment
is to be made is that of 'Political Science and Public
Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned,
H
DR. RAJ BIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1009
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J]
..,
is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration A
and subject-matterwise they are different and not one and the
same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in
Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and
separate and on selection the appellant could not have been
appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration."
B
36. A perusal of the above passage shows that the obser-
vation that Political Science and Public Administration are dis-
tinct and separate subjects was apparently given on a conces-
sion, because what has been stated therein is that "it is not in
controversy" that the post of Lecturer in Public Administration and c
Political Science are distinct and separate. The use of the words
'it is not in controversy' shows that a concession was made on
the point by learned counsel for the respondent in that case. Hence
the observation cannot be regarded as a precedent.
37. Moreover, no reasoning has been given in the afore- D
said passage (quoted above) as to why it has been held that
Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and
separate subjects.
38. The decision of a Court is a precedent if it lays down
E
some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere casual ob-
servations or directions without laying down any principle of law
and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent.
39. In State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC
172, a Constitution Bench of this Court observed (vide para F
43) that a decision is an authority for what it decides (i.e. the
' principle of law it lays down), and not that everything said therein
constitutes a precedent.
40. In Divisional C.'mtrofler, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty
and Another (2003) 7 SCC 197 (vide para 23), this Court ob- G
served that the only thing binding as an authority upon a subse-
quent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided.
~-
\,
41. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa vs.
Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (AIR 1968 SC 647 vide para 13):-
H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R. ~
"A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides.
+
A
What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every
observation found therein nor what logically follows from the
various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl
of Halsbury, LC said in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495:
B "Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC
1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations y
of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to
repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment
,-
must be read as applicable to the pa.rticular facts proved, or
assumed to be proved, since the.generality of the expressions
c which may be found there are not intended to be expositions
of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular r
facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.
The other is that a case is only an authority for what it _actually
decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition
D that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code,
whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not ~
always logical at all."
(Emphasis supplied)
E
42. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & others
(1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide para 18) this Court observed:-
"The ratio of any decision must be understood in the
background of the facts of that case. It has been said long.
F time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually
decides, and not what logically follows from it." ~
43. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt.
Ltd (2003) 2 SC 111 (vide para 59), this Court observed:-
G "It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional
facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential
value of a decision."
(Emphasis supplied)
. ,.....
H 44. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & an-
DR RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1011
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [MARK.AN DEY KAT JU, J]
-+
other vs. N.R. Vairamani & another (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a A
decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situ-
ation. In the same Judgment this Court also observed:
/
"Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts B
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions
of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These
observations must be read in the context in which they appear
to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be
construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and c
provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to
embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant
to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do
not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their
_words are not to be interpreted as statutes.
D
In London Graving dock co. Ltd. vs. Horton (1951 AC 737 at
p. 761 ), Lord Mac Dermot observed:
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by
treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they
were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules E
of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract
from the great weight to be given to the language actually
used by that most distinguished judge."
In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER
294) Lord Reid said, "LordAtkin's speech .... is not to be F
) treated as if it was a statute definition it will require
qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971)1
WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe ·
even a reserved judgment of Russell L. J. as if it were an
Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways
Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:
G
"There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or
judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment,
and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made
in the setting of the facts of a particular case.r."
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may·
make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.
Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is
not proper. ~
The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
B precedents have become locus classicus:
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity
between one case and another is not enough because even
a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding
such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases
c (as said by Cardozo, J.) by matching the colour of one case
against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which
side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another
case is not at all decisive."
*** *** ***
D
"Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path
of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the
side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and
branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of
obstructions which could impede it."
E
45. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the deci-
sion of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case (supra) can-
not be read as a Enclid's formula or treated as a precedent, since
it has not given any reason for holding that Political Science and
F Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects, and since
the aforesaid decision was given on a concession.
46. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be
sustained and it is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and
G the writ petition filed in the High Court stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Having had the benefit of going
through my learned brother's draft judgment. I wish to indicate
H my own views in arriving at the same conclusion as arrived at j_
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1013
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
by my learned brother but by traversing a different route. Since A
the facts of the case have been adequately dealt with by my
learned brother, I shall confine myself to the legal aspect only.
2. In my view, the majn question which falls for consider-
ation in this appeal is whether the appellant, who has a post
-t·· graduate degree and Ph.Din Political Science could have been 8
appointed as Reader in Public Administration by the respon-
dent University. The answer to the connecte.d question, which
flows from the first, as to whether the High Court was right in
quashing the appellant's appointment as Reader in Public Ad-
ministration, depends on the answer to the first. c
3. As has been pointed out by my learned brother, the Uni-
versity has in its counter affidavit taken a stand that Public Ad-
ministration is one of the branches of Political Science and the
Selection Committee comprised of eminent scholars had rightly
D
chosen the appellant for the post of Reader after considering
" his academic achievements and also relying upon the view of
the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 5.3.1992
stating that the subject of Political Science and PublicAdminis~
tration are interchangeable and inter-related and that a candi-
date who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administra- E
tion is eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science.
Similarly, a candidate possessing a Masters Degree in Politi-
cal Science is eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in
Public Administration.
F
4. Despite the aforesaid views expressed by the expert
bodies such as the University and the University Grants Com-
mission, the High Court has held Public Administration and Po-
litical Science to be distinct and separate disciplines. In arriv-
ing at such conclusion, the High Court has relied on a decision
G
of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda V. Chancellor,
Sambalpur University, (2001) 8 SCC 532), wherein this Court
~
had held Public Administration and Political Science to be two
separate disciplines. Further reliance. has been placed by the
High Court on Regulation 2 of the University Grants Commis-
H
I
J
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
-t
A sion Rules to arrive at the finding that for appointment to the
post of Reader a candidate would have to be qualified in the ~
relevant subject.·
5. As has also been commented upon by my learned
brother, the distinction made by the High Court between Public
B Administration and Political Science in "Dr. Bhanu Prasad ~
Panda's case (supra) is not based on any jurisprudential rea-
saning but on the basis of a personal evaluation of the prevail~
ing circumstances. On the other hand, in the instant case, both
the University and the University Grants Commi~sion, have sup-
c ported the stand of the appellant and have filed affidavits in sup-
port thereof. In deciding Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case (su-
pra), this Court did not have the benefit of the views of the Uni-
versity and the University Grants Commission and the conclu..,
sion was.. ~~r~v~d at _on the basis of a personal understanding of ~
D Public Administration and Political Science.
6. This is where the distinction lies between the decision ~
in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case (supra) and the case in hand.
7. The recruitment Rules followed by the Universify clearly
E indicates that in order to be appointed as Lecturer in a particu-
lar discipline a candidate must have a post-graduate degree in ~
the relevant subject. On the other hand, for appointment to the
post of Reader such a condition has not been specified. In fact,
in R~gulation 2 it has been generally indicated that no person ,.
F shall be appointed to a teaching post in the University or in any
institution, including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized ~
under the UGC Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to be a I
University under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if he/she .~
does not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifications for the
appropriate subject.
G
8. In my view, the omission in· the Regulations cannot be
said to be unintentional or a case of casus omissus. In my ...,.
view, the expression 'appropriate subject' was intended to cover
the post of Reader and once the expert bodies had indicated . ..\..
H that the appellant who held a post-graduate degree in Political
~
·-
I"
DR. RAJBIR SINGH DALAL v. CHAUDHARI DEVI LAL 1015
UNIVERSITY, SIRSA & ANR. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Science was eligible to be appointed to the post of Reader in A
Public Administration and had been rightly appointed to such
post, it is normally not for the Courts to question such opinion,
unless it has specialised knowledge of the subject.
9. Significantly, the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's
case (supra) does not reflect the aforesaid position and does B
not also indicate the reason why and on what basis such a de-
cision holding Public Administration and Political Science to
be two distinct disciplines had been arrived at.
10. In such circumstances, I agree with my learned brother c
that the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal
cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed; the
writ petition filed in the High Court by the respondent-University
is dismissed and the appointment of the respondent as Reader
in Public Administration is upheld.
D
,. 11. There will be no order as to costs.
N.J: Appeal allowed.
>
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "University appointment"Sign in to search