MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. & ORS.versusSATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.

                      [2010] 3 S.C.R. 91


 MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. & ORS.                       A
                               v.
       SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2010)

                    FEBRUARY 25, 2010
                                                                   B
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)

      Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 - ss.
2(35) and 53 - Complaint by unapproved lecturers against
college and its authorities - Grievance Committee                  C
constituted u/s. 53 taking action against the authorities - High
Court, following the principle of ejusdem generis held that
unapproved teacher since do not come within the definition
of 'teachers' uls. 2(35), the Committee has no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the complaint - Held: Definition of teacher     o
uls. 2(35) is wide enough to include even unapproved teacher
- Grievance Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain
complaint and undertake the statutory exercise conferred ul
s. 53 of the Act - Matter remitted to High Court.
      Interpretation of Statutes - When general words are          E
juxtaposed with specific words, general words cannot be read
in isolation - Their colour and contents are to be derived from
their context - The ejusdem generis principle applies only
 when a contrary intention does not appear - No Statute can
be interpreted in such a way as to render a part of it otiose -    F
Doctrines/Principles - ,Principle of "ejusdem generis"
Applicability of - Discussed.
     On the complaint from respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the
lady l~cturers and employees of the respondent-college),
of ill-treatment and sexual harassment against the                 G
authorities of the said college, the Grievance Com_mittee
of the University by its communication directed the 1st
and 2nd respondents to take steps against the 3rd and
4th respondents with a direction to suspend them and it
             .         .     91                                    H
    92      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   was also directed that the 5th respondent may be
    reinstated. It was also directed that approval. granted in
    respect of the service of 3rd and 4th respondent be
    frozen. The respondent-college refused to comply with
    the direction issued by the University.
B     Assailing those communications, the college
  authorities and those two teachers flle~ a '!Nrit petition
  contending that the University had n? a~thority t~ issue
  those communications. The High Court, following the 1
  principle of "ejusdem gener{s" held that 5th and 6th
C respondent, being unapproved teachers, do not come
  within the definition of 'teachers' u/s. 2(35) and hence, the
  Grievance Committee constituted u/s. '53 of the Act, has
  no jurisdiction to take cognizance of their complaint.
  Hence the present appeal.
D
         Allowing th~ appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. In view of combined reading of Section
  2(35) with Section 53 of Maharashtra University Health
  Sciences Act, 1998 in respect of unapproved teachers, it
E cannot be said that ·Grievance Committee has no
  jurisdiction to entertain complaint and undertake the
  statutory exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of the
  Act. [Para 20] [102-B]
       2. The definition of teachers u/s. 2(35) is wide enough'
F to include even unapproved teacher. The definition has
  two parts, the first part deals with full time approved
  Demonstrators, Tutors; Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers
  etc. and the second part deals with other persons
  teaching or giving instructions on full time basis in
G affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the
  University. [Para 21] [102-C-D]
        3. Even though the approved teachers and those
  'other persons' who are teaching and giving instructions
H fall in two different classes both are encompassed with
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA   93
                 PRASARAK MANDAL

the definition of teacher u/s. 2(35) of the Act. The word    A
'and' before 'other persons' is disjunctive and indicate a
different class of people. [Para 22] [102-E]
     4. A class is a conceptual creation taking within its
fold numerous categories of persons with similar
                                                             8
characteristics. Here in the group of 'other persons' who,
on full time basis, are teaching or giving instructions in
colleges affiliated with the University and they are also
teachers even if they are unapproved. This seems to be
the purport of Section 2(35) of the Act. [Para 23] (102-F-
~                                                            c
     5. The High Court has not properly appreciated the
principle of ejusdem generis in understanding the scope
of Section 2(35) rfw Section 53 of the Act. The expression
"ejusdem generis" which means "of the same kind or           0
nature" is a principle of construction, meaning thereby
when general words in a statutory text are flanked by
restricted words, the meaning of the general words are
taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of
restricted words. This is a principle which arises "from     E
the linguistic implication by which words having literally
a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as
reduced in scope by the verbal context." It may be
regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on
implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless
there is some contrary indication. [Paras 25 and 26] [103-   F
A; 103-8-0]
     'The Origins and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem
Generis Rule' by Glanville Williams, 7 Conv (NS) 119,
referred to.                                                 G.
    6. The ejusdem generis principle is a facet of1 the .         c;
principle of 'Noscitur a sociis', which contemplates that a
statutory term is recognised by its associated words.
When general words are juxtaposed with specific words,
general words cannot be read in isolation. Their colour H
    94       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [201 O] 3 S.C.R.


A and their contents are to be derived from their context.
  [Para 27] (103-E-F]
        Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover,
    (1957) AC 436 at 461, referred to.
B       7. The ejusdem generis principle applies only when
    a contrary intention does not appear. In that instant case,
    a contrary intention is clearly indicated inasmuch as the
    definition of 'teachers' under Section 2(35) of the Act, is
    in two parts. The first part. deals with enumerated
c   categories but the second part which begins by the
    expression "and other" envisages a different category of
    persons. Here 'and' is disjunctive. So, while construing
    such a definition, the principle of ejusdem generis cannot
    be applied. [Para 28] [103-G-H; 104-A]
D      K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kera/a AIR 1960
    SC 1080, relied on.
          Quazi v. Quazi (1979) 3 All England Reports 897,
    referred to.
E      8. No Statute can be interpreted i11 such a way as to·
  render a part of it otiose. Where there is a different
  legislative intent, as in the present case, the principle of
  ejusdem generis cannot be applied to make a part of t~e
  definition completely redundant. [Paras 33 and 34] [105-
F F; 105-G]
         Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise,
    G_ovt. of Tripura, Agartala and Ors. AIR 1972 SC 1863, relied
    on.
G      9. By giving such a narrow a·nd truncated
  interpretation of 'teachers' u/s. 2(35), High Court has not
  only ignored a part of Section 2(35) but it has also given
  an interpretation which is incompatible with the avowed
  purpose of Section 53 of the Act [Para 35] (105-H; 106-
H A]    .                              -              .
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA     95
                 PRASARAK MANDAL

     10. High Court fell into an error by holding that the A
Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they
are not approved teachers. The purpose of setting up the
Grievance Committee u/s. 53 of the Act is to provide an
effective grievance redressal forum to teachers and other B
employees. Any interpretation of 'teachers' under Section
2(35) of the Act which denies the persons covered under
Section 2(35) an access to the said forum comple.tely
nullifies the dominant purpose of creating such a forum.
Unapproved teachers need the protection of this forum c
more than the approved teachers. By creating such a
forum, the University virtually exercised its authority and
jurisdiction as a /oco-parentis over teachers-both
approved and unapproved and who are working in
various colleges affiliated with it. The idea is to give such 0
teachers and employees a protection against any kind of
harassment which they might receive in their work place.
The creation of such a forum is in tune with protecting
the 'dignity of the individual' which is one of the core
constitutional concepts. Therefore, the doctrine of
ejusdem generis cannot be pressed into service to defeat E
this dominant statutory purpose. [Paras 36, 37 and 38)
[106-B-D; 106-E]
     Guy T. Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank 293 US
84, 88-89, 79 L Ed 211, 55 S Ct 50, 52 (1934), referred to.     F
    11. The matter is remitted to the High Court to
dispose of the writ petition in the light of the observations
made in this judgment about jurisdiction of Grievance
Committee. However, the order of reinstatement made in
respect of 5th and 6th respondent shall be maintained           G
and their continuity in service cannot be disturbed
without following the provision of University Acts and
Statutes. [Para 41] [107-E-F]

                                                                H
    96        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A                         Case Law Reference:
          (1979) 3 All-England Reports 897               Referred
    to.                         Para 29
          AIR 1960 SC 1080         Relied on.            Para 30
B
          AIR 1972 SC 1863         Relied on.            Para 31
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    2050 of 2010.

c        From the Judgment & Order Dated 08.06.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ
    Petition No. 1976 of 2006.

        U.U. Lalit, Prasenjit Keswani and Gaurav Agrawal for the
    Appellants.
D
        Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai and G. Ramakrishna
    Prasad for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences through its
    Registrar and its Grievance Committee and Management
    Council as appellants impugn the judgment dated 8.6.07
F   rendered by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on
    several writ petitions filed by the Management Council and the
    employees.

          3. The basic facts of the case are as under:

G     The appellant No. 1, the Maharashtra University of Health
  Sciences has been constituted under Maharashtra University
  of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short 'the said Act'). The 2nd
  appellant is the Committee constituted under Section 53 of the
  said Act and the 3rd appellant is the Management Council of
H the appellant No.1 and also constituted under the said Act.
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA         97
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

     4. The 1st respondent in this appeal is a public trust         A
registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the
said trust runs several colleges including the 2nd respondent.
The 3rd respondent is the Principal of the said college and the
4th respondent is a Lecturer therein. Both the 5th and 6th
respondents were appointed Lecturers in the said college but        B
their appointments were not approved but they continued to
work as lecturers in the said college.

     5. On 7.8.05 a representation was made by the 5th
respondent to the effect that after she had served the said         C
college for the last three and a half year suddenly she was
informed on 6.8.05 that the college authorities accepted her
resignation. That was shocking to her since the 5th respondent
could never resign as she had several liabilities and had no
other income. The education of her two children had to be
looked after while her husband was disabled in view of an           D
accident and her father-in-law was a retired person. In her
representation to the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-University
she stated that at the time of her appointment, college
authorities took her signature on a resignation letter without
mentioning any date and that might have been used to remove         E
her from the college. The University on receipt of the said
representation sent a letter to the said college on 19th August,
2005 for its explanation and explanation was submitted by the
said college on 31.08.05.
                                                                    F
     6. Thereafter, the appellant-University formed a Committee
to look into the grievance of the 5th respondent and the said
Committee after visiting the college and conducting an enquiry
on 29.08.05, 01.09.05 and 02.09.05 submitted its report to the
appellant-LI niversity.
                                                                    G
     7. Again on 09.09.05, the 5th respondent submitted
another representation to the Grievance Committee of the
appellant-University which was also forwarded to the said
college for its response. That was submitted by the said college
on 04.10.05 and 08.11.05. Thereafter, the appellant-University      H
    98      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A gave the 5th respondent a hearing in respect of her complaint
  which she raised in her representation. The said meeting was
  held before the Grievance Committee and the Grievance
  Committee gave a detailed report on the basis of its enquiry.
  Before the report was given, the 5th respondent and the person
B against whom complaint was lodged were examined along with
  some witnesses. Therea~er, the Grievance Committee took a
  decision to refer the matter to the State Commission for
  Women for further investigation and it was decided that the
  report of the said Commission was to be .considered in the next
c meeting of the Committee.

       8. Thereafter, on 18th January, 2006 the 6th respondent
  lodged a further complaint with the police station Sadar against
  the 4th respondent as a result of which offence punishable under
  Section 509 of l.P.C was registered against the 4th respondent
D and the Summary Criminal Case. No.4332/06 was registered
  in the Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur. On 19.01.06, 5th respondent
  also lodged report with the police station and on the basis of
  the said report an offence came to be registered on 04.02.06
  vide Crime No.22/06 under Sections 468, 471, 354, 509, 506
E read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection
  with the aforesaid criminal case, the 3rd and 4th respondents
  were arrested by the police on 05.02.06 and were remanded
  to police custody for two days. They were granted bail by the
  Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur on 08.02.06. The Principal of the
F college was also granted anticipatory bail on 06.02.06 and
  which order was subsequently confirmed on 23.02.06.

        9. Then on 18.02.06, the services of the 6th respondent
    were terminated by the said college.

G       10. In view of the complaint of the 6th respondent, the
   University called the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents for hearing
   on 08.03.06 before the Grievance Committee and on 04.03.06
  'the 6th respondent sent a complaint to the appellant-University
   seeking action agairt?t the respondents. In that complaint the
H 6th respondent gave details of ill-treatment and sexual
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA            99
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

 harassment which she and other lady lecturers and employees           A
 of the college including the 5th respondent were subjected to
 by the authorities of the said college. In view of such complaints,
 the Grievance Committee of the University met on 8th March,
 2006 to consider the issues in the light of complaints received
 by the 6th respondent against the college authorities. Pursuant       B
 to the meeting of the Grievance Committee, the University by
 its communication dated 21st March, 2006 directed the 1st and
 2nd respondents to take steps against the 3rd and 4th
 respondents with a direction to suspend them and it was also
 directed that the 5th respondent may be reinstated. It was also       c
 directed that approval granted in respect of the service of 3rd
 and 4th respondent be frozen. A reply was sent by the 1st
 respondent to the order of the appellant-University dated
 21.03.06. Thereafter, the appellant-University further informed
 the college authorities that the decision to freeze the approval
                                                                       0
 of the 3rd and 4th respondents was taken under the provision
 of Clause 25.2 of the University Direction No.25/01 and it was
 done in accordance with Section 16 (8) of the said Act. The
governing body of the respondent college in its meeting held
on 27.03.06 refused to comply with the direction issued by the
 University by its letter dated 21st March, 2006 and this fact was     E
communicated to the appellant by the said college. On 1st April
2006, the 1st and 2nd respondents addressed a letter of the
same date and contended therein that the appellant-University
does not have the power to freeze the approval of appointment
of permanent teachers like the 3rd and 4th respondents and             F
the appellant was asked to withdraw its communication dated
29th March, 2006.

      11. Assailing those communications dated 21st March,
2006 and 29th March, 2006 of the appellants, the respondents           G
namely, the Trust, the College Authorities and those two
teachers filed a writ petition being 1976/06 contending therein
that the appellant-University has no authority to issue those
communications. That writ proceeding was heard on contest
by the Hon'ble High Court.                                             H
    100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A        12. By the impugned judgment dated 08.06.07, the Hon'ble
    High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed t~e
    orders passed by the University in respect of action taken
    against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of
    5th and 6th respondent of sexual harassment at the work place.
B
       13. Challenging the said judgment, this Court has been
    moved.

        •14. The main question on which the matter was argued by
   -the appellants was that the High Court was in error in deciding
C ·that the Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of
    the said Act, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any
    complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they are not
    approved teachers of the respondent college.

0        1-5. In order to appreciate the·legal issues involved in this
    argument, it is better to set out the definition of 'teacher' under
    Section 2(35) of the said Act. Section 2(35) of the said Act runs
    as under:-

          "2(35) "teachers" means full time approved Demonstrators,
E         Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers, Readers, Associate
          Professors, Professors and other persons teaching or
          giving instructions on full time basis in affiliated colleges
          or approved institutions in the university;"

F         16. Section 53 of the said Act provides as follows:

          "53. (1) There shall be a Grievances Committee in the
          University to deal with 1the grievances of teachers and other
          employees of the University, Colleges, institutions and
          recognised institutions and to hear and settle grievances
G         as far as may be practicable within six months, and the
          committee shall make a report to the Management
          Council.

                (2) It shall be lawful for the Grievances Committee
H         to entertain and consider grievances or complaints and
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA       101
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

     report to the Management Council for taking such action A
     as it deems fit and the decisions of lhe Management
     Council on such report shall be final.

           (3) The Grievances Committee.:Phall consist of the
     following members, namely:
                                                                  B
           (a) The Pro-Vice Chancellor, - Chairperson

          (b) Four members of the management council
     nominated by the Management Council from amongst
     themselves                             - Members             c
           (c) The Registrar     - Member Secretary

         . (4) The Registrar shall not have a right to vote."

     17. Construing the aforesaid two Sections, the High Court,   o
following the principle of "ejusdem generis" held that 5th and
6th respondent, being unapproved teachers, do not come within
the definition of 'teachers' under Section 2(35) quoted above.

    18. This Court cannot accept the aforesaid decision of the E
High Court for various reasons indicated hereinafter.

     19. If the definition of teachers, as quoted above, is
properly perused it would appear that within the definition of
teachers not only full time approved Demonstrators, Tutors,
Assistant Lecturers, etc., are included but the definition is wide F
enough to include "and other persons teaching or giving
instructions on full time basis in affiliated colleges or approved
institutions in the university." Similarly, the Grievance
Committee which is established under Section 53 of the said
Act has also been given wide powers to deal with not only the G
grievances of teachers but also of other employees of the
University, college, institution and to settle their grievances as
far as may be practicable within a certain time-frame. Sub-
section (2) of Section 53 of the said Act provides for
consequential steps which 1he Grievance Committee may take H
    102      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   after entertaining the grievances of the category of persons
    named in Section 53(1 ). Section 53(3) provides for the
    constitution of the Grievance Committee and Section 53(4) is
    procedural in nature.

         20. On a combined reading of Section 2(35) with Section
8
    53 of the said Act, this Court is of the opinion that in respect of
    unapproved teachers also Grievance Committee has the
    jurisdiction to entertain complaint and undertake the statutory
    exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of the said Act.

C        21. The definition of teachers under Section 2(35) is wide
    enough to include even unapproved teacher. In fact the said
    definition has two parts, the first part deals with full time
    approved Demonstrators, Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers
    etc. and the second part deals with other persons teaching or
D   giving instructions on full time hasis in affiliated colleges or
    approved institutions in the University.

          22. Even though the approved teachers and those 'other
    persons' who are teaching and giving instructions fall in two
E   different classes both are encompassed with the definition of
    teacher under Section 2(35) of the Act. The word 'and' before
    'other persons' is disjunctive and indicates a different class of
    people.

       23. A class is a conceptual creation taking within its fold
F numerous categories of persons with similar characteristics.
  Here in the group of 'other persons' fall those who, on full time
  basis, are teaching or giving instructions in colleges affiliated
  with the University and they are also teachers even if they are
  unapproved. This seems to be the purport of Section 2(35) of
G the Act.

         24. It cannot be disputed that 5th and 6th respondent were
    engaged in teaching on full time basis in the respondent
    college, which is an affiliated college of the appellant-University.
H
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA           103
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

    25. This Court is constrained to observe that the Hon'ble          A
High Court has not properly appreciated the principle of
ejusdem generis in understanding the scope of Section 2(35)
read with Section 53 of the Act.

       26. The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means
                                                                       8
 "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction,
 meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are
 flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words
 are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of
 restricted words. This is a principle which arises "from the
 linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide         C
 meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in
 scope by the verbal context." It may be regarded as an instance
·of ellipsis, or reliance on implication. This principle is presumed
to apply unless there is some contrary indication (See Glanville
Williams, 'The Origins and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem         D
Generis Rule' 7 Conv (NS) 119).

     27. This ejusdem generis principle is a facet of the
principle of Noscitur a sociis. The Latin maxim Noscitur a
sociis contemplates that a statutory term is recognised by its         E
associated words. The Latin word 'sociis' means 'society'.
Therefore, when general words are juxtaposed with specific
words, general words cannot be read in isolation. Their colour
and their contents are to be derived from their context [See
similar observations of Viscount Simonds in Attorney General           F
v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, (1957) AC 436 at 461
of the report]

     28. But like all other linguistic canons of construction, the
ejusdem generis principle applies only when a contrary
intention does not appear. In instant case, a contra.ry intention      G
is clearly indicated inasmuch as the definition of 't~achers'
under Section 2(35) of the said.Act, as pointed out above, is
in two parts. The first part deals with enumerated categories
but the second part which begins. by the expressiqn "and other"
                                                                       H
    104       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A   envisages a different category of persons. Here 'and' is
    disjunctive. So, while construing such a definition the principle
    of ejusdem generis cannot be applied.

       29. In this context, we should do well to remember the
B caution sounded by Lord ·scarman in Quazi v. Quazi - ((1979)
  3 All-England Reports 897]. At page 916 of the report, the
  learned Law Lord made this pertinent observation:-

          "lf the legislative purpose of a statute is such that a statutory
          series should be read ejusdem generis, so be it; the rule
C         is helpful. But, if it is not, the rule is more likely to defeat
          than to fulfil the purpose of the statute. The rule, like many
          other rules of statutory interpretation, is a useful servant but
          a bad master."

         30. This Court while construing the principle of ejusdem
0
    generis laid down similar principles in the case of K.K. Kochuni
    v. State of Madras and Kera/a, [AIR 1960 SC 1080]. A
    Constitution Bench of this Court in Kochuni (supra) speaking
    through Justice Subba Rao (as His Lordship then was) at
E   paragraph 50 at page 1103 of the report opined:-

          "... The rule is that when general words follow particular and
          specific words of the sa!'lle nature, the general words must
          be confined to tbe things of the same kind as those
          specified. But it is clearly laid down by.decided cases that
F         the specific words must form a distinct genus or category.
          It is not an inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible
          inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary."

                                                   (Emphasis supplied)
G        31. Again this Court in. another Constit4tion Bench decision
    in the case of Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of .
    Excise, Govt. of Tripura; Agartala. and others, AIR 1972 SC
    1863, speaking through Justice Dua, reiterated the same
    principles in paragraph 9, at page 1868 of the report. On the
H
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA          105
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

principle of ejusdem generis, the learned .ludge observed as           A
follows:-

     " ... The ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the
     incompatibility between specific and general words. This
     doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an                 8
     enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the
     enumeration constitute a class or category; (iii) that class
     or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the
     general term follows the enumeration; and (v) there is no
     indication of a different legislative intent."
                                                                       c
                                             (Emphasis supplied)

      32. As noted above, in the instant case, there is a statutory
indication to the contrary. Therefore, where there is statutory
indication to the contrary the definition of teacher under Section     o
2(35) cannot be read on the basis of ejusdem generis nor can
the definition be confined to only approved teachers. If that is
done, then a substantial part of the definition under Section
2(35) would become redundant. That is against the very
essence of the doctrine of ejusdem generis. The purpose of             E
this doctrine is to reconcile any incompatibility between specific
and general words so that all words in a Statute can be given
effect and no word becomes superfluous (See Sutherland:
Statutory Construction, 5th Edition, page 189, Volume 2A).

      33. It is also one of the cardinal canons of construction that   F
no Statute can be interpreted in such a way as to render a part
of it otiose.

     34. It is, therefore, clear where there is a different
legislative intent, as in this case, the principle of ejusdem          G
generis cannot be applied to make a part of the definition
completely redundant.

     35. By giving such a narrow and truncated. interpretation
of 'teachers' under Section 2(35), High court has not only
                                                                       H
     106      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


 A   ignored a part of Section 2(35) but it has also unfortunately
     given an interpretation which is incompatible with the avowed
     purpose of Section 53 of the Act.

         36. The purpose of setting up the Grievance Committee
 8 under   Section 53 of the Act is to provide an effective grievance
   redressal forum to teachers and other employees. Any
   interpretation of 'teachers' under Section 2(35) of the Act which
   denies the persons covered under Section 2(35) an access to
   the said forum completely nullifies the dominant purpose of
 C creating such a forum. It goes without saying that unapproved
   teachers need the protection of this forum more than the
   approved teachers. By creating such a forum the University
   virtually exercised its authority and jurisdiction as a loco-parentis
   over teachers-both approved and unapproved and who are
   working in various colleges affiliated with it. The idea is to give
 D such teachers and employees a protection against any kind of
   harassment which they might receive in their work place. The
   creation of such a forum is in tune with protecting the 'dignity
   of the individual' which is one of the core constitutional concepts.

 E        37. Therefore, the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be
     pressed into service to defeat this dominant statutory purpose.
     In this context we may usefully recall the observations of the
     Supreme Court of United States in Guy T. Helvering v.
     Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 US 84, 88-89, 79 L Ed 211,
F    55 S Ct 50, 52 (1934), as under:-

         "while the rule is a well-established and useful one, it is,
         like other canons of statutory construction, only an aid to
         the ascertainment of the true meaning of the statute. It is
         neither final nor exclusive. To ascertain the meaning of the
·G       words of a statute, they may be submitted to the test of all
         appropriate canons of statutory construction, of which the
         rule of ejusdem generis is only one. If, upon a consideration
         of the cpntext and the objects sought to be attained and
         of the act as a whole, it adequately appears that the
H        general words were not used in the restricted sense
  MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA          107
     PRASARAK MANDAL [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

     suggested by the rule, we must give effect to the                A
     conclusion afforded by the wider view in order that the will
     of the Legislature shall not faJI."

                                            (Emphasis supplied)

     38. Therefore, with great respect, this Court is constrained     B
to hold that the Hon'ble High Court possibly fell into an error by
holding that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction to
entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since
they are not approved teachers.
                                                                      c
      39. Various other factual aspects were considered by the
High Court but since the High Court has come to a clear
erroneous conclusion that Grievance Committee has no
jurisdiction in dealing with the complaint filed by the 5th and 6th
respondent, the very basis of the High Court judgment is
                                                                      0
unfortunately flawed and cannot be sustained.

     40. For.the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the High Court is set aside.

      41. The High court shall now dispose of the writ petition       E
filed before it in the light of the observations made hereinbefore
about the j_urisdiction of the Grievance Committee. However,
this Court makes it clear that the order of reinstatement made
in respect of 5th and 6th respondent shall be maintained and
their continuity in service cannot be disturbed without following     F
the provision of University Acts and Statutes.

    42. The appeal is allowed with the directions mentioned
hereinabove. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.       G