N. SATYANARAYANAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

     692

 A
                            M. SATYANARAYANA
                                   v.
                     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

                              MARCH 12, 1986

                [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH JJ.]
 B

           A. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule SA of order XV - When     •
     the certificate issued under Article 133(1) (bi of the
     Constitution by the High Court is unwarranted on the facts of
     the case the certificate TIP.1st be revoked and the appeal be
     dismissed.
 c
           B. Construction of a statute, explained - Construction
     of the word "and" in clalise (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka
     Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules
     1984 explained - Subb-clause (a) cannot be read independently
     of sub-clause (b).
 D

           The appellant who is a student of some academic
     distinction and ability sought admission to the Ist year of
     MBBS Course under the special category ' being a son of a
     freedoni fighter or political sufferer within the meaning of
 E
     clauae (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges
     (Selection of Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had
     participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of
     September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not
     granted admission under that category,       he filed a writ ~
     petition before the Karnataka High Court contending that
     sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules
.F
     should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not
     only of each other but also what follows by way of proviso
     though not so mentioned. Both the Writ Petition and a further
     appeal to the Division Bench were dismissed. However, the Hign
     Court granted a certificate under Article 133(l}(b) of the
     Constitution.
 G
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

           HELD : 1. Under Rule SA of Order XV of the Supreme Court
     Rules, 1966 when a party to whom a certificate of fitness to
     appeal has been granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court
 H
                             M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE             693


    ~may,   either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to      A
       all necessary parties or may make such orders as the
       circumstances of the case may require. In this case the
       questiop involved is a simple one and the intention and the
       purpose of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection
       of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984 is manifest and in the
       language there is no difficulty. The certificate under Article     B
       133(i)(b) of the Constitution to the effect that in the
    ..,opinion of the Kamataka High Court the question involved
       needs to be decided by the Supreme Court is unwarranted.
       [696 D-j!]

          2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with reference
   to grrumier. Statute, whenever the language permits, IDJSt be          c
   construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
·-intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression "and"
   in clause (Hi) of Rule 4 has generally cU1111lative effect
   requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins
   together and it is the antithesis of "or". The expression
   "and" in the instant case, cannot be read disjunctively.               D
    [696 C-D]

              A.L Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at
        126; and lshwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P.,
        (1969] 1 s.c.R. 219 applied.
                                                                          E
              2. 2 It is not possible to hold that sub-clause (a)
        should be read independently of sub-clause (b). If the
        expression "and" in clause (a) is read independently then
        there was no need for him to suffer at all and mere
        participation would be enough to make him a political
-       sufferer. · If it were to be held so it would defeat the          F
        ratioruile the Rllle 4 defining a political sufferer or freedom
        fighter in the Rules. (695 G-ll; 696 C]

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 600 of
        1986.
                                                                          G
'-:-·         From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1985 of the
        Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2665 of 1985.

                P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                H
     694                SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1986] 1 S.C.R.

A
           SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J, This is an appeal by certificate 1,
     under article 133 (1)(b) of the Constitution from the decision
     of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismiss-
     ing the appeal against the judgment of the learned , single
     Judge of that~h Court. The appellant herein who is a
    ~student of some academic distinction and ability sought admi-
B    ssion to the 1st year of M.B.B.S. Course to the Directorate of
     Medical Education, Karnataka. The appellant was an applicant
     to one of the Government seats in the Medical Colleges managed ,._
     by the Government or one of the seats to which the Government
     was entitled to in the private medical colleges.

c          The appellant was seeking admission under special
     category reserved for sons of political sufferers or freedom
     fighters. The relevant rule is Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical
     Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984.


D
     Note (iii) of the said Rule has defined a political Sufferer
     or Freedom Fighter as follows :

                "A person
                                                                        4
                (a) who prior to 15th August, 1947 participated in
                the National Movement for the emanicipation of
                India, that is in the struggle for Indian Indepen-
E               dence; and

                (b) who even after 15th August, 1947 participated
                in the struggle in any princely State for securing
                accession of such State to the then dominion of ,ii
                India, who on account of such participation -           ti
F
                (i) has suffered imprisonment or detention for a
                p_eriod of not less than three months, the said
                period being calculated taking into account the
                period of remission, if any, granted for good
                conduct, other like reasons; or
G
                 (ii) has been awarded capital punishment; or

                 (iii) had died     while   undergoing   sentence 'or
                 detention; or

H                (iv) was killed or became permanently incapacitated
                 by Police or Military firing or lathi charge; or
               M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE [MUKHARJI, J.]         695

                                                                       A
               (v) lost his job,     property or other means of
               livelihood;

              (vi) where certificates of imprisonment are not
              available due to records being destroyed, etc., an
              affidavit by the political sufferer about his im-        B
              prisonment supported by a certificate from a Member
              of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislature,
              who has been in jail with him specifying the period
              of imprisonment would be accepted."

           The case of the appellant was that his father had
    participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of      C
    September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. His further case is
    that because of the aforesaid participation, his grand father
    i.e. father of the appellant's father, was annoyed and turned
    {lim out of the house and so the father of the appellant could
~-< ,'10t pursue his studies and therefore could not qualify himself
  ' well for good job. The appellant claimed admission on the          D
    ground of being a son of a freedom fighter or political
    sufferer and that he belongs to a special category and should
    be treated as such. It is contended that sub-clause (a) of
    clause (iii) of the note 4 of the Rules should be read inde-
    pendently as well as sub-clause (b) not only of each other but
    also what follows by way of proviso though not so mentioned.       E
    The learned judge was unable to accept that contention. The
    division Bench accepted this view of the learned single Judge.

         Reservations in favour of sons of political sufferers are
     onsidered to be belonging to a special category. There is
•. rationale behind it. Those who are political sufferers undergo      F
   certain disadvantages and pass on such disadvantages to their
   children. They will be in a worse position than the children
   of those who are not political sufferers for the purpose of
   taking adequate education; attention etc. because their
   parents might have languished in any prison or might have been
   deprived of property. Looked at from that point of view, poli-      G
   tical sufferer should be an identifiable person who could be
 '"'recognised as such on certain rational basis. It is, there-
   fore, manifest that a person to be a political sufferer must
   have suffered in any one of the five ways stated in sub-clause
   (i) to (v) of clause (b).
                                                                       H
    696                SUPREME COURT REPORTS         [1986] i s.c.R.

A
         If the expression 'and' in clause (a) is read"
    independently then there was no need for him to suffer at all
    and mere participation would be enough to make him a political
    sufferer. That would defeat the rationale behind the rule. It
    would, therefore, frustrate the intention and purpose of the
    legislature, The expression 'and' in these circumstances
B   cannot be resd disjunctively. It is not possible to hold that
    sub-clause (a) should be read independently of sub-clause (b),
    A statute cannot be construed merely with reference to'-
    grammar. Statute whenever the language permits llllSt be
    construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
    intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression 'and'
c   has generally a culll.llative effect, requiring the fulfilment of
    all the conditions that it joins together and it is the anti-
    thesis of 'or'. In this connection reference may be made to
    A.L Gopa1.an v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at 126 •.
    See also the observations of this Court in Isbwar Singh Bindra(
    & Ors. v. The State of u.P., [1969] l s.c.R. 219.                 \-~
D
         This construction, put by High Court, in our opinion, is
    logical and reasonable construction. The High Court as
    mentioned hereinbefore has granted a certificate under article
    133 (l)(b) of the Constitution. We find that the question is a
    simple one and the intention and the purpose of the rule is
E   manifest and in the language, there is no difficulty. The
    certificate under article 133 (l)(b) of the Constitution, in
    our opinion, was therefore unwarranted. We, therefore, revoke
    the certificate and dismiss the appeal SUIJlllSrily under Rule
    5-A of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, We, however,
    make it clear that the appellant, the student in question, i
F   a student of some credit and distinction and has obtained 74%
    of the marks in his examination. His case should be considered
    favourably and objectively in the general category for
    admission.

         In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be
G   no order as to costs,



    S.R.                                           Appeal dismissed.
H