Supreme Court of India
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS.versusOM PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 509
- Decided
- 6 November 2012
Holding
Seniority of direct‑entry officers is to be fixed on the actual date of commencement of their training as per the proviso to Rule 3, and Batch‑17 officers cannot be given seniority from a date prior to their training, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
Summary
The case concerned the seniority of Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force who were selected in a single recruitment process but trained in two separate batches (Batch 16 starting 1‑Feb‑1993 and Batch 17 starting 2‑July‑1993). A promoted officer (respondent No.1) who joined on 15‑Mar‑1993 was placed below all Batch‑17 officers in the seniority list, prompting a writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the promoted officer should rank above Batch‑17 officers and below Batch‑16 officers. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 and its proviso, which states that for direct entrants the date of appointment is the date of commencement of training. The Court held that the rule’s language is clear, the proviso applies only when officers selected together are split into batches, and seniority cannot be fixed from a date prior to the actual training of Batch‑17. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The correct method of determining inter‑seniority of direct‑entry officers trained in separate batches under Rule 3 of the BSF Rules, 1978
- Whether the proviso to Rule 3 can be interpreted to give Batch‑17 officers seniority from the earlier Batch‑16 training date
- The applicability of the rule of contemporanea expositio when the statutory language is plain and unambiguous
- Whether hardship or administrative practice can justify deviating from the literal meaning of the rule
Subjects
seniorityinter‑seniorityservice lawrule interpretationcontemporanea expositioprovisoBorder Security Forceadministrative interpretationhardship doctrineliteral construction
Judgment
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 47
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. A
v.
OM PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2133-2134 of 2004)
NOVEMBER 6, 2012
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
Service Law - Seniority - lnter-se seniority - Among
officers holding the same rank - Selection of direct recruits in C
one selection process - However, given training in two separate
batches (Batch Nos. 16 and 17) commencing on 1.2.1993 and
2. 7. 1993 respectively - Promotee joining the post on
15. 3. 1993 - Promo tee placed in seniority list below the officers
of Batch No. 17 - On challenging the seniority list, Courts o
below directed to place the promotee below officers of Batch
No. 16 and above the officers of batch No. 17 as per proviso
to rule 3 of the Rules - In appeal, direct recruits in Batch No.
17 taking the plea that officers selected through single selection
process cannot be accorded seniority by bifurcating in different E
batches - Held: Fixing the seniority of the officers of 17th Batch
from 1.2.1993 would amount to fixing their seniority from a date
prior to their birth in the cadre as their training started on
2. 7. 1993 - Such a course is not permissible in law - Border.
Security Force (Seniority Promotion and Superannuation of F
Officers) Rules, 1978 - r. 3.
Interpretation of Statute:
Rule of Contemporanea exposition - Administrative
interpretation/Executive Construction-Applicability- Held: The G
rule can be invoked, but it will not always be decisive with
respect to question of construction - The Court may refuse
to follow such a construction in a clear case of e"or, on the
ground that wrong practice does not make the law.
47 H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Interpretation of proviso - The normal function of a
proviso is to provide an exception - Usually, proviso cannot
be interpreted as a general rule that has been provided for,
nor can be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the
enactment or take away a right conferred by the statute - If,
B upon plain and fair construction, the main provision is clear,
a proviso cannot expand or limit its ambit or scope.
Rule of interpretation - If the language of a statute is
plain and allows only one meaning, it has to be given effect
C to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice - If there
is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law -
Court cannot be called upon to discard the cardinal rule of
interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship.
Rule of interpretation - While interpreting provision of a
D statute, court can neither add nor subtract even a single word
- It would not amount to interpretation, but legislation - Court
cannot proceed with the assumption that legislature
committed a mistake - Even if there is some defect in the
phraseology used by legislature in framing the statute, it is
E not open to the court to add and amend, or by construction,
make up for the deficiencies - The statute not to be construed
in light of certain notions that the legislature might have had
in mind or what the legislature is expected to have said.
F Maxims:
'Dura Lex Sed Lex' - Applicability.
'A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum' - Meaning and
G applicability.
154 persons were selected to be appointed as Asstt.
Commandant (Direct Entry) in Border Security Force.
They were sent for training in two separate batches.
Batch No. 16 joined the training on 1.2.1993 while Batch
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 49
SHARMA & ORS.
No. 17 joined the training on 2.7.1993. Respondent No. A
1, who was promoted from the feeding cadre, joined the
post as Asstt. Commandant on 15.3.1993. In the seniority
list, respondent No. 1 was placed below all the officers
of Batch No. 17.
B
Respondent No. 1 challened the seniority list in a writ
petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition
holding that he was entitled to be ranked in seniority
above the officers of Batch No.17 and below the officers
in Batc.h No. 16. The writ appeal, thereagainst was C
dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellants, who were the officers in the Batch
No. 17 approached this Court with the permission of the
Court as they were not the parties before the High Court.
They interalia contended that the officers selected o
through single selection process, if have been given
training in different batches cannot be accorded different
seniority by bifurcating them; and that statutory
authorities have previously always fixed seniority without
taking note of the fact that training was conducted in E
different batches.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Contemporanea expositio as expounded
by administrative authorities, is a very useful and relevant F
guide to the interpretation of the expressions used in a
statutory instrument. The words used in a statutory
provision must be understood in the same way, in which
they are usually understood, in ordinary common
parlance with respect to the area in which, the said law G
is in force or, by the people who ordinarily deal with them.
[Para 7] [62-H; 63-A]
K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Emakulam and Anr.
AIR 1981 SC 1922: 1982 (1) SCR 629; Indian Metals and
Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Bhubaneshwar AIR 1991 SC 1028: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR
329; Y.P. Chawla and Ors. v. M.P. Tiwari and Anr. AIR 1992
SC 1360: 1992 (2) SCR 440 - relied on.
1.2 A construction, which is in consonance with long-
standing practice prevailing in the concerned department
B in relation to which the law has been made, should be
preferred. [Para 8) [63-C-D]
N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
1992 Supp (1) sec 584: 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 423; M.B.
c Joshi and Ors. v. Satish Kumar Pandey and Ors. 1993 Supp
(2) sec 419: 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 - relied on.
1.3 While a maxim was applicable with respect to
construing an ancient statute, the same could not be
used to interpret Acts which are comparatively modern,
D and in relation to such Acts, interpretation should be
given to the words used therein, in the context of new
facts and the present situation, if the said words are in
fact, capable of comprehending them. [Para 9) [63-D-F]
E Senior Electric Inspector and Ors. v. Laxminarayan
Chopra and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 159: 1962 SCR 146; Mis. J.K.
Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 191: 1988 SCR 700- relied on.
1.4 The principle of contemporenea expositio, i.e.
F interpreting a document with reference to the exposition
that it has received from the Competent Authority, can be
invoked though the same will not always be decisive with
respect to questions of construction. Administrative
construction, i.e., contemporaneous construction that is
G provided by administrative or executive officers who are
responsible for the execution of the Act/Rules etc.,
should generally be clearly erroneous, before the same
is over-turned. Such a construction, commonly referred
to as practical construction although not controlling, is
H nevertheless entitled to be given considerable weightage
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 51
SHARMA & ORS.
and is also, highly persuasive. It may, however, be A
disregarded for certain cogent reasons. In a clear case
of error, the Court should, without hesitation, refuse to
follow such a construction for the reason that, "wrong
practice does not make the law." "Past practice should
not be upset provided such practice conforms to the B
rules" but must be ignored if it is found to be de hors the
rules. [Para 10] (63-F-H; 64-A-B-C-D]
Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and Ors. v. Delhi Stock
Exchange Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049: 1979 (3) SCR
.
373; Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and Anr. v. Bharat
c
Forge Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1996 SCR 2856: 1995 (2) SCR
716; State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Dev Ganga Enterprises
(2010) 1 SCC 505: 2009 (16) SCR 269; Shiba Shankar
Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 471:
2009 (15) SCR 866; D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and D
Ors. (1997) 4 sec 753: 1997 (3) SCR 1040 - relied on.
1.5 "The manner in which a statutory authority
understands the application of a statute, would not
confer any legal right upon a party unless the same finds E
favour with the Court of law, dealing with the matter".
This principle has also been applied in judicial decisions,
as it has been held consistently, that long standing settled
practice of the Competent Authority should not normally
be disturbed, unless the same is found to be manifestly F
wrong, 'unfair'. [Paras 11 and 12] [64-D-F]
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 3502: 2003 (3) SCR 409;
Thamma Venkata Subbamma (dead) by LR. v. Thamma
Rattamma and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1775: 1987 (3) SCR 236; G
Assistant District Registrar, Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
v. Vikrambhai Rati/al Dalal and Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 27;
Ajitsinh C. Gaekwad and Ors. v. Dileepsinh D. Gaekwad and
Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 439; Collector of Central Excise,
Madras v. Mis. Standard Motor Products etc. AIR 1989 SC 1 H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 298: 1989 (1) SCR 824; Kattite Valappil Pathumma and Ors.
v. Taluk Land Board and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1115: 1997 (2)
SCR 175; Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income-
tax, A.P. and Anr. (2003) 9 SCC 510: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR
382 - relied on.
B 1.6 The rules of administrative interpretation/
executive construction, may be applied, either where a
representation is made by the maker of a legislation, at
the time of the introduction of the Bill itself, or if
construction thereupon, is provided for by the executive,
C upon its coming info force, then also, the same carries
great weightage. [Para 13) [65-A-B]
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 792: 2008 (5) SCR 793 - relied
0 on.
1.7 Administrative interpretation may often provide
the guidelines for interpreting a particular Rule or
executive instruction, and the same may be accepted
unless, of course, it is found to be in violation of the Rule
E itself. [Para 14) [65-C]
2.1 The normal function of a proviso is generally, to
provide for an exception i.e. exception of something that
is outside the ambit of the usual intention of the
F enactment, or to qualify something enacted therein,
which, but for the proviso would be within the purview
of such enactment. Thus, its purpose is to exclude
something which would otherwise fall squarely within the
general language of the main enactment. Usually, a
proviso cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has
G been provided for. Nor it can be interpreted in a manner
that would nullify the enactment, or take away in entirety,
a right that has been conferred by the statute. In case, the
language of the main enactment is clear and
unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 53
SHARMA & ORS.
the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude A
by implication, what clearly falls within its expressed
terms. If, upon plain and fair construction, the main
provision is clear, a proviso cannot expand or limit its
ambit and scope. [Para 15] [65-0-G]
CIT, Mysore etc. v. lndo Mercantile Bank Ltd. AIR 1959 B
SC 713: 1959 Suppl. SCR 256; Kush Sahgal and Ors. v.
M.C. Mitter and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1390: 2000 (2) SCR 648;
Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v.
Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank
'Employees Union and Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 574: 2003 (6) C
Suppl. SCR 1039; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 187: 2008 (14) SCR 419; State
of Kera/a and Anr. v. B. Six Holiday Resorts Private Limited
and Ors. (2010) 5 sec 186: 2010 (3) SCR 1 - relied on.
D
2.2 The proviso to a particular provision of a statute,
only embraces the field which is covered by the main
provision, by carving out an exception to the said main
provision. [Para 16] [66-B]
Ram Narain Sons Ltd. and Ors. v. Assistant E
Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 765:
1955 SCR 483; AN. Sehgal and Ors. v. Rajeram Sheoram
and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1406: 1991 (2) SCR 198- relied on.
2.3 In a normal course, proviso can be extinguished F
from an exception for the reason that exception is
intended to restrain the enacting clause to a particular
class of cases while the proviso is used to remove
special cases from the general enactment provided for
them specially. [Para 17] [66-C-D]
G
3.1 It is a well settled principle of interpretation that
hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a
basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by
the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence
allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect
to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. [Para
18] [66-E-F]
Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal
8 v. Keshab Chandra Manda/ AIR 1950 SC 265: 1950 SCR
435; D. D. Joshi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1983
SC 420: 1983 (2) SCR 448 - relied on.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR
C 1955 SC 661 : 1955 SCR 603 - followed.
3.2 If there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to
amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon,
to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the
purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of
D an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to
it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The
words, 'dura lex seiJ lex' which mean "the law is hard but
it is the law" may be used to sum up the situation.
Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship
E to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law.
A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and
literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation.
"Inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered
while interpreting a statute. Therefore, it is evident that the
F hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for
not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every
word of the provision, if the language used therein, is
unequivocal. [Paras 19 and 21] [66-H; 67-A-B-F-G]
Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woolen,
G Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1128: 1963
Suppl. SCR 127 - followed.
Martin Bum Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1966
SC 529: 1966 SCR 543; The Commissioner of Income Tax,
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 55
SHARMA & ORS.
West Bengal /, Calcutta v. Mis Vegetables Products Ltd. AIR A
1973 SC 927: 1973 (3) SCR 448; Tata Power Company Ltd.
v. Reliance Energy Limited and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 659:
2009 (9) SCR 625 - relied on.
4.1 While interpreting the provisions of a statute, it
8
can neither add, nor subtract even a single word. The
legal maxim "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum"
means, "From the words of law, there must be no
departure". A section is to be interpreted by reading all
of its parts together, and it is not permissible, to omit any
part thereof. The Court cannot proceed with the C
assumption that the legislature, while enacting the statute
has committed a mistake; it must proceed on the footing
that the legislature intended what it has said; even if there
is some defect in the phraseology used by it in framing
the statute, and it is not open to the court to add and D
amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies,
which have been left in the Act. The Court can only iron
out the creases but while doing so, it must not alter the
fabric, of which an Act is woven. The Court, while
interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add words to a E
Statute, or read words into it which are not part of it,
especially when a literal reading of the same, produces
an intelligible result. [Para 22] [67-G-H; 68-A-C]
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar and Ors. F
AIR 1953 SC 148: 1953 SCR 533; Sri Ram Ram Narain
Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459: 1959 Suppl.
SCR 489 ; M. Pentiah and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa
and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1107: 1961 SCR 295 ; The Balasinor
Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shanker/a/
Pandya and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 849; Dadi Jagannadham v. G
Jammu/u Ramulu and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 71: 2001 (2)
Suppl. SCR 60 - relied on.
4.2 The statute is not to be construed in the light of
certain notions that the legislature might have had in· H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or
what the legislature might have done, or what the duty
of the legislature to have said or done was. The Courts
have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not
permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of
B the enactment, in order to avoid any real, or imaginary
hardship which such literal interpretation may cause.
Under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court
does not have the power to add or subtract even a single
word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but
c legislation. [Paras 23 and 24] [68-E-G]
5.1 The Service Selection Board selected 154
persons to be appointed as Assistant Commandant
(Direct Entry), and they were then sent for training in two
separate batches. Batch No.16 consisted of 67 officers
D who joined the training on 1.2.1993, while Batch No.17
consisted of 87 officers who joined the training on
2.7.1993. They could not be sent for training in one batch,
even though they had been selected through the same
competitive examination, due to administrative reasons
E i.e., character verification etc. Respondent No.1, who was
promoted from the feeding cadre, joined his post on
15.3:1993. Thus, it is evident that he was placed in the
promotional cadre, prior to the commencement of the
training of Batch No.17 on 2.7.1993. [Para 25] [69-A-C]
F 5.2 The language of rule 3 is crystal clear. There is
no ambiguity with respect to it. The validity of the rule is
not under challenge. In such a fact-situation, it is not
permissible for the court to interpret the rule otherwise.
The said proviso will have application only in a case where
G officers who have been selected in pursuance of the
same selection process are split into separate batches.
Interpreting the rule otherwise, would amount to adding
words to the proviso, which the law does not permit.
[Para 27] [69-G-H; 70-A-B]
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 57
SHARMA & ORS.
5.3 If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it A
would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior,
to their birth in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th
batch), joined training on 2.7.1993 and their claim is to fix
their seniority from the 1st of February, 1993 i.e. the date
on which, the 16th batch joined training. Such a course B
is not permissible in law. The facts and circumstances of
the case neither require any interpretation, nor reading
down of the rule. [Para 28) [70-B-C]
Case Law Reference:
c
1982 (1) SCR 629 Relied on Para 7
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 329 Relied on Para 7
1992 (2) SCR 440 Relied on Para 7
D
1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 423 Relied on Para 8
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 Relied on Para 8
1962SCR146 Relied on Para 9
1988 SCR 700 Relied on Para 9 E
1979 (3) SCR 373 Relied on Para 10
1995 (2) SCR 716 Relied on Para 10
2009 (16) SCR 269 Relied on Para 10 F
2009 (15) SCR 866 Relied on Para 10
1997 (3) SCR 1040 Relied on Para 10
2003 (3) SCR 409 Relied on Para 11
G
1987 (3) SCR 236 Relied on Para 12
1987 (Supp) sec 21 Relied on Para 12
1987 (Supp) sec 439 Relied on Para 12
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 1989 (1) SCR 824 Relied on Para 12
1997 (2) SCR 175 Relied on Para 12
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 382 Relied on Para 12
2008 (5) SCR 793 Relied on Para 13
B
1959 Suppl. SCR 256 Relied on Para 15
2000 (2) SCR 648 Relied on Para 15
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 1039 Relied on Para 15
c 2008 (14) SCR 419 Relied on Para 15
2010 (3) SCR 1 Relied on Para 15
1955 SCR 483 Relied on Para 16
D 1991 (2) SCR 198 Relied on Para 16
1950 SCR 435 Relied on Para 18
1983 (2) SCR 448 Relied on Para 18
E 1955 SCR 603 Followed Para 19
1963 Suppl. SCR 127 Followed Para 20
1966 SCR 543 Relied on Para 21
1973 (3) SCR 448 Relied on Para 21
F
2009 (9) SCR 625 Relied on Para 21
1953 SCR 533 Relied on Para 22
1959 Suppl. SCR 489 Relied on Para 22
G Para 22
1961 SCR 295 Relied on
AIR 1987 SC 849 Relied on Para 22
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 60 Relied on Para 22
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 59
SHARMA & ORS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. A
2133-2134 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order of the High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir at Jammu dated 27.07.2001 in SWP No. 1393
of 1999 and dated 01.08.2002 in LPA No. 275 of 2002.
B
R. Venkataramani, Kumar Parimal, Aljo K. Joseph, P.V.
Yogeswaran, Supriya Garg, Neelam Singh, Shodham Babu for
the Appellants.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Gaurav·Sharma, c
Shailendra Saini, B.K. Prasad, Sushma Suri, Jaya Goyal, Nikhil
Nayyar, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Naveen R. Nath for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
22.7.2001, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at
Jammu in SWP No. 1393 of 1999, and judgment and order
dated 1.8.2002 passed in LPA No. 275 of 2002. E
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these
appeals are mentioned ~s under:
A. The appellants and contestant respondents are
Assistant Commandants in· the Border Security Force F
{hereinafter referred to as, "BSF'). The appellants and
respondent nos. 4 and 5 are direct recruits, while respondent
no.1 has been promoted against the quota of 1O per cent posts,
that are reserved for Ministerial Cadre posts.
G
B. The Union of India - respondent no.2, issued a seniority
list dated 18.7.1995, placing respondent no. 1 at Serial No.
1863, below all the officers of Batch No.17 and thereafter, a
final seniority list of Assistant Commandants was published on
5.7.1996. H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A- C. Respondent no.1 challenged the said seniority list in
which he was ranked below the officers of Batch No. 17, by filing
Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1999, on the ground that with effect
from 15.3.1993, he stood promoted as Assistant Commandant,
and that he had also completed all requisite training for the
B same at the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur, which had commenced
on 1.2.1993. There was another batch that undertook training
on 2.7.1993. However, the said officers of the second batch,
who had joined such training on 2. 7.1993, could not be ranked
higher than him, in the seniority list.
.
c .
D. The said writ petition filed by respondent no.1, was
contested by the Union of India. The learned single judge
allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order
dated 27.7.2001, wherein it was held that respondent no.1/
petitiooer therein, was, in fact, entitled to be ranked in seniority
D above the officers of Batch No.17, and below the officers of
Batch No.16.
E. The Union of India challenged the aforementioned
impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2001, by filing a
E Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide impugned
judgment and order dated 1.8.2002.
F. The appellants, though had not been impleaded as
parties before the High Court, sought permission to file special
leave petitions with respect to the said matter, and the same
F was granted by this Court. Hence, these appeals.
3. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that
officers that are selected in response to a single advertisement,
G and through the same selection process, if have been given
training in two separate batches, for administrative reasons i.e.
police verification, medical examination etc., cannot be
accorded different seniority by bifurcating them into two or more
separate batches. The High Court therefore, committed an error
H by allowing the claim of respondent no.1, which opposed the
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 61
SHARMA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
seniority of the officers, for the reason that, if Batch Nos. 16 A
and 17 are taken together, the officers who, in terms of seniority,
were placed at Serial No.5, would be moved to Serial No. 60,
if treated separately. For instance, the person placed at Serial
No. 8 had moved to Serial No. 62, and the one placed at Serial
No. 11 had moved to Serial No. 64. Thus, suph an-act has B
materially adversely affected the seniority of officers even
though they were duly selected in the same batch. The
provisions of Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority,
Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the, 'Rules 1978'), have been c
wrongly interpreted. The Statutory authorities have previously,
always fixed seniority without taking note of the fact that training
of officers was conducted in different batches. Thus, appeals
deserve to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG and Dr. D
Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos. 4 and 5, have vehemently opposed the
appeals, contending that the said Rule is not ambiguous in any
manner and thus, the same must be given a literal interpretation"
and that if, as a result of this, any hardship is caused to anyone, E
the same cannot be a valid ground for interpreting the statutory
rule in a different manner. The said rules are not under
challenge. The rule of contemporanea expositio does not apply
in contravention of statutory provisions. The proviso to Rule 3
provides for the bifurcation of officers of the same batch in the F
event of a contingency which is exactly what has taken place
in the instant case. T~e High Court has only applied the said
provisions. Thus, no interference is called far and the present.
appeals are liable to be rejected.
G
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused th~ record. ·
6. The relevant Rule 3 of tHe Rules, 1978, reads as under:
"(3) Subject to the provisipns of Sub-Rule {2) inter - se · H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A seniority amongst officers holding the same rank shall be
as follows namely:
(i) Seniority of Officers promoted on the same day shall
be determined in the order in which they are selected for
promotion to that rank.
B
(ii) Seniority of direct entrants shall be determined in
accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them
before the Selection Board and at the passing out
examination conducted at the Border Security Force
c Academy.
(iii) Seniority of temporary officers subject to the provisions
of clauses (i) and (ii) shall be determined on the basis of
the order of merit at the time of their selection and officers
D selected on an earlier batch will be senior to officers
selected in subsequent batches.
(iv) Seniority of officers subject to the provisions of clauses
(i) (ii) and (iii) shall be determined according to the date
of their continuous appointment in that rank.
E
Provided that in case of direct entrants the date of
appointment shall be the date of commencement of
their training course at the Border Security Force
Academy." (Emphasis added)
F
Rule of Contemporanea Expositio:
7. This Court applied the rule of contemporanea expositio,
as the Court found that the same is a well established rule of
the interpretation of a statute, with reference to the exposition
G that it has received from contemporary authorities. However,
while doing so, the Court added words of caution to the effect
that such a rule must give way, where the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous., This Court applied the said
rule of interpretation by holding that contemporanea expositio
H as expounded by administrative authorities, is a very useful and
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 63
SHARMA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
relevant guide to the interpretation of the expressions used in A
a statutory instrument. The words used in a statutory provision
must be understood in the same way, in which they are usually
understood, in ordinary common parlance with respect to the
area in which, the said law is in force or, by the people who
ordinarily deal with them. (Vide: K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax B
Officer, Emakulam & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1922; Indian Metals
and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bhubaneshwar, AIR 1991 SC 1028; and Y.P. Chawla & Ors.
v. M.P. Tiwari & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1360).
8. In N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., C
1992 Supp (1) SCC 584; and M.B. Joshi & Ors. v. Satish
Kumar Pandey & Ors., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419, this Court
observed that such construction, which is in consonance with
long-standing practice prevailing in the c:Oncerned department
in relation to which the law has been made, should be preferred. D
9. In Senior Electric Inspector & Ors. v. Laxminarayan
Chopra & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 159; and Mis. J.K. Cotton
Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 1988 SC 191, it was held that while a maxim was
applicable with respect to construing an ancient statute, the E
same could not be used to interpret Acts which are
comparatively modern, and in relation to such Acts,
interpretation should be given to the words used therein, in the
context of new facts and the present situation, if the said words
are in fact, capable of comprehending them. F
10. In Desh Sandhu Gupta and Co. & Ors. v. Delhi Stock
Exchange Association Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 1049, this Court
observed that the principle of contemporenea expositio, i.e.
interpreting a document with reference to the exposition that it G
has received from the Competent Authority, can be invoked
though the same will not always be decisive with respect to
questions of construction. Administrative construction, i.e.,
contemporaneous construction that is provided by
administrative or executive officers who are responsible for the
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A execution of the Act/Rules etc., should generally be clearly
erroneous, before the same is over-turned. Such a construction,
commonly referred to as practical construction although not
controlling, is nevertheless entitled to be given considerable
weightage and is also, highly persuasive. It may however, be
B disregarded for certain cogent reasons. In a clear case of error,
the Court should, without hesitation, refuse to follow such a
construction for the reason that, "wrong practice does not make
the law." (Vide : Municipal Corporation for City of Pune & Anr.
v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2856). (See
c also: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dev Ganga Enterprises,
(2010) 1 SCC 505; and Shiba Shankar Mahapatra v. State
of Orissa & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 471).
In D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 4
SCC 753, the Court held that, "past practice should not be upset
D provided such practice conforms to the rules" but must be
ignored if it is found to be de hors the rules.
11. However, in Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors. v. State
of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 3502, this Court held that,
"the manner in which a statutory authority understands the
E application of a statute, would not confer any. legal right upon a
party unless the same finds favour with the Court of law, dealing
with the matter".
12. This principle has also been applied in judicial
F decisions, as it has been held consistently, that long standing
settled practice of the Competent Authority should not normally
be disturbed, unless the same is found to be manifestly wrong,
'unfair'. (Vide: Thamma Venkata Subbamma (dead) by LR.
v. Thamma Rattamma & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1775; Assistant
District Registrar, Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v.
G Vikrambhai Ratilal Dalal & Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 27; Ajitsinh
C. Gaekwad & Ors. v. Dileepsinh D. Gaekwad & Ors., 1987
(Supp) SCC 439; Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Mis.
Standard Motor Products etc., AIR 1989 SC 1298; Kattite
Va/appil Pathumma & Ors. v. Taluk Land Board & Ors., AIR
H
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 65
SHARMA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
1997 SC 1115; and Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of A
Income-tax, A.P. & Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 510).
13. The rules of administrative interpretation/executive
construction, may be applied, either where a representation is
made by the maker of a legislation, at the time of the
introduction of the Bill itself, or if construction thereupon, is 8
provided for by the executive, upon its coming into force, then
also, the same carries great weightage. (Vide : Mahalakshmi
Sugar Ml1/s Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2009
SC 792).
c
14. In view of the above, one may reach the conclusion that
administrative interpretation may often provide the guidelines
for interpreting a particular Rule or executive instruction, and
the same may be accepted unless, of course, it is found to be
in violation of the Rule itself.
D
Interpretation of the proviso:
15. The normal function of a proviso is generally, to provide
for an exception i.e. exception of something that is outside the
ambit of the usual intention of the enactment, or to qualify
something enacted therein, which, but for the proviso would be E
within the purview of such enactment. Thus, its purpose is to
exclude something which would otherwise fall squarely within
the general language of the main enactment. Usually, a proviso
cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has been provided
for. Nor it can be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the F
enactment, or take away in entirety, a right that has been
conferred by the statute. In case, the language of the main
enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have no
repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so
as to exclude by implication, what clearly falls within its G
expressed terms. If, upon plain and fair construction, the main
provision is clear, a proviso cannot expand or limit its ambit
and scope. (Vide: CIT, Mysore etc. v. lndo Mercantile Bank
Ltd., AIR 1959 SC 713; Kush Sahgal & Ors. v. M.C. Mitter &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1390; Haryana State Cooperative Land H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Development Bank Ltd. v. Haryana State Cooperative Land
Development Bank Employees Union & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC
574; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors.,
AIR 2009 SC 187; and State of Kera/a & Anr. v B. Six Holiday
Resorts Private Limited & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 186).
B 16. The proviso to a particular provision of a statute, only
embraces the field which is covered by the main provision, by
carving out an exception to the said main provision. (Vide:
Ram Narain Sons Ltd. & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of
Sa/es Tax & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 765; and A.N. Sehga1 & Ors.
C v. Rajeram Sheoram & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1406).
17. In a normal course, proviso can be extinguished from
an exception for the reason that exception is intended to
restrain the enacting clause to a particular class of cases while
the proviso is used to remove special cases from the general
0 enactment provided for them specially.
Hardship of an individual:
18. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great
hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to
E an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in
full rigor
It is a well settled principle of interpretation that hardship
or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter
F the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such
meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the
language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same
has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible
injustice. (Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax,
West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Manda/, AIR 1950 SC 265;
G and D. D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC
420).
19. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of
H this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature
ROHlTASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 67
SHARMA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to A
discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of
mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently
clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or
unjust the result may be. The words, 'dura lex sed lex' which
mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up B
the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes
hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the
law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and
literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation.
20. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore C
Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128 a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that, "inconvenience is not"
a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
21. In Martin Bum Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR
1966 SC 529, this Court, while dealing with the same issue D
observed as under:-
"A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil.
A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve
what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A E
statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court
likes the result or not."
(See also: The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
I, Calcutta v. Mis Vegetables Products Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 927;
and Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Limited & F
ors., (2009) 16 sec 659).
Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an
individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and
grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the
language used therein, is unequivocal. G
Addition and Subtraction of words:
22. The Court has to keep in mind the fact that, while
interpreting the provisions of a Statute, it can neither add, nor
subtract even a single word. The legal maxim "A Verbis Legis H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Non·Est Recedendum" means, "From the words of law, there
must be no departure". A section is to be interpreted by reading
all of its parts together, and it is not permissible, to omit any
part thereof. The Court cannot proceed with the assumption that
the legislature, while enacting the Statute has committed a
B mistake; it must proceed on the footing that the legislature
intended what it has said; even if there is some defect in the
phraseology used by it in framing the statute, and it is not open
to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for
the deficiencies, which have been left in the Act. The Court can
c only iron out the creases but while doing so, it must not alter
the fabric, of which an Act is woven. The Court, while
interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add words to a Statute,
or read words into it which are not part of it, especially when a
liter~I reading of the same, produces an intelligible result. (Vide:
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Ha/dar & Ors., AIR 1953
0
SC 148; Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, AIR
1959 SC 459; M. Pentiah & Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa
& Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107; The Ba/asinor Nagrik Co-operative
Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shanker/al Pandya & Ors., AIR 1987
SC 849; and Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu & Ors.,
E (2001) 7 sec 11 ).
23. The Statute is not to be construed in light of certain
notions that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the
legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature
F might have done, or what the duty of the legislature to have said
or done was. The Courts have to administer the law as they
find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear
language of the enactment, in order to avoid any real, or
imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause.
G 24. In view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that, under
the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have
the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would
not amount to interpretation, but legislation.
25. The matter requires to be considered in the light of the
H aforesaid settled legal propositions.
ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 69
SHARMA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
The Service Selection Board (CPOs) 91, selected 154 A
persons to be appointed as Assistant Commandant (Direct
Entry), and they were then sent for training in two separate
batches. Batch No.16 consisted of 67 officers who joined the
training on 1.2.1993, while Batch No.17 consisted of 87 officers
who joined the training on 2.7.1993. They could not be sent for B
training in one batch, even though they had been selected
through the same competitive examination, due to
administrative reasons i.e., character verification etc.
Respondent no.1, who was promoted from the feeding cadre,
joined his post on 15.3.1993. Thus, it is evident that he was c
placed in the promotional cadre, prior to the commencement
of the training of Batch No.17 on 2. 7.1993.
26. The learned Single Judge dealt with the statutory
provisions contained in Rule 3 and held as under:
"A perusal of the above makes it apparent that in the case D
of the officers who have been promoted their seniority is
to be determined on the basis of continuous appointment
on a day in which they are selected for promoted to that
rank. In case of direct entrants their inter-se seniority is
to be determined on the basis of aggregate marks E
obtained by them. lnter-se seniority of the officers
mentioned at serial No.(I) (ii) and (iii) is to be determined
according to the date of their continuous appointment in
the rank. Proviso to the rule is clear. It is specifically
mentioned that in the case of direct entrants, the date of F
appointment shall be the date of commencement of their
training course at the Border Security Force Academy."
In light of the above, relief had been granted to respondent
no.1. The Division Bench concurred with the said interpretation. G
27. If we apply the settled legal propositions referred to
hereinabove, no other interpretation is permissible. The
language of the said rule is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity
with respect to it. The validity of the rule is not under challenge.
In such a fact-situation, it is not permissible for the court to H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A interpret the rule otherwise. The said proviso will have
application only in a case where officers who have been
selected in pursuance of the same selection process are split
into separate batches. Interpreting the rule otherwise, would
amount to adding words to the proviso, which the law does not
B permit.
28. If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would
amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior, to their birth
in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th batch), joined
training on 2. 7.1993 and their claim is to fix their seniority from
C the 1st of February, 1993 i.e. the date on which, the 16th batch
joined training. Such a course is not permissible in law.
The facts and circumstances of the case neither require
any interpretation, nor reading down of the rule.
o 29. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for the
appellants, has placed very heavy reliance upon the judgment
of the Delhi High Court (Dinesh Kumar v. UOI & Ors.) dated
14.2.2011 wherein, certain relief was granted to the petitioner
therein, in view of the fact that there was some delay in joining
E training, in relation to passing the fitness test set by the Review
Medical Board. The court granted relief, in light of the facts and
circumstances of the case, without interpreting Rule 3 of the
Rules 1978. Thus, the said judgment, in fact, does not lay down
any law. The case at hand is easily distinguishable from the
F above, as that was a case where seniority and promotion had
been granted on a notional basis, with retrospective effect and
it was held that the person to whom the same had been granted,
was entitled to all consequential benefits.
30. Thus, in view of the above, the appeals lack merit and
G therefore, are accordingly dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search