SUBHA PRASAD NANDI MAJUMDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL SERVICE & ORS

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1808 : 2025 INSC 910

                  Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar
                                 v.
              The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 9913-9916 of 2025)
                                 30 July 2025
    [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
       the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the University
       and State’s stance that government Notification dated 24.02.2021
       extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is inapplicable
       to the appellant due to non-satisfaction of the 10-year continuous
       teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service law – Retirement – Extension of retirement age
       from 60 to 65 years – Appellant served as a teaching staff
       member for 16 years at a college in Assam – Thereafter, in
       2007 joined West Bengal University to the post of Secretary,
       Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies, in 2012 promoted
       to the post of Senior Secretary, and continued in service
       uninterruptedly – In 2021, the West Bengal Government issued
       a Notification dated 24.02.2021, extending the retirement age
       from 60 to 65 years, provided the employee had at least 10
       years of continuous teaching experience in any State-aided
       university/college – Appellant denied the extension as he had
       no teaching experience in a ‘university or college aided by
       the State of West Bengal – Writ petition thereagainst allowed
       by the Single Bench of the High Court, however, the Division
       Bench set aside the same – Correctness:
       Held: To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the
       State of West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when
       the employee has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary,
       illegal and totally unjustified – The text, the context, the purpose
       as well as the object of providing, “continuous teaching experience
       of 10 years in any university” as a condition in the Notification

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                                 1809

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

     dated 24.02.2021 is not at all to exclude such experience from
     universities or colleges outside the State of West Bengal, it was
     solely to distinguish between state-aided and private institutions –
     Classifying employees based on past teaching experience from
     Universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge
     of retirement, after having served for decades lacks nexus and
     discernible object – While prescribing the condition of 10 years,
     the Notification employed the same expression, “in any State-
     aided University or Government-aided College”, to indicate that the
     employment must be in a university or a college receiving State
     aid – In any event, excluding those who had teaching experience
     from a university or a college outside the State of West Bengal for
     the purpose of granting the benefit of extended date of retirement
     does not stand to reason – By virtue of the Notification, the benefit
     of extended date of retirement given to teachers is now extended
     to non-teaching employees, for whom teaching experience may in
     fact not be relevant – Extension of the retirement date, dependent
     on past experience of teaching in a university or a college located
     in West Bengal alone has no object to subserve and as such
     classification of employers into those who have acquired teaching
     experience in West Bengal and those who acquired such experience
     outside West Bengal is artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary – It is
     an artificial classification, a case of a suspect classification intended
     to sub-serve only parochial interests and nothing more – Stand
     taken by the State and the university is illegal and violative of the
     equality norm – Impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench
     of the High Court set aside. [Paras 15-21, 24, 27, 28]

                                Case Law Cited
     J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N. [1985] 1 SCR 992 : (1984) Supp.
     SCC 650; Harshendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan [2002]
     Supp. 1 SCR 309 : (2002) 6 SCC 393; Onkarlal Nandlal v. State
     of Rajasthan [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 1075 : (1985) 4 SCC 404;
     Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fraser and Ross
     [1960] 3 SCR 857 : 1960 SCC OnLine SC 49 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005; West
     Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976; West Bengal
     Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment Act, 2017.
1810                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                             List of Keywords
     Government Notification dated 24.02.2021; Extension of the
     retirement age from 60 to 65 years; 10-year continuous teaching
     condition in university situated in West Bengal; West Bengal
     University; Post of Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate
     Studies in Science; Post of Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for
     Post-Graduate Studies in Science; No teaching experience in
     a ‘university or college aided by State of West Bengal; Judicial
     review; Resolve of fraternity; State-aided University; Government-
     aided College; Past experience of teaching in university or college
     located in West Bengal; Classification of employers; Artificial
     classification; Suspect classification; Sub-serve only parochial
     interests.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9913-9916
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2023 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in MAT Nos. 1762 and 1705 of 2023 in CAN Nos. 1
     and 2 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shashank Shekhar.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Jaideep Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Kunal Chatterji,
     Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee,
     Siddhartha Chowdhury, Snehasish Mukherjee, Piyush Malik.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1.   Delay condoned. Leave Granted.
2.   The appellant challenges the Division Bench’s decision, upholding the
     University and State’s stance that a government Notification dated
     24.02.2021 extending the retirement age from 60 to 65 years is
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1811

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

     inapplicable to him due to non-satisfaction of the- 10-year continuous
     teaching condition in a university situated in West Bengal. Despite
     the Notification’s reference to ‘any university’, the respondents argue
     that ‘any’ should be interpreted in consonance with the definition
     clause in the parent Act, limiting ‘university’ to a university constituted
     by a State Act.
3.   After careful consideration, we conclude that the Notification’s intent
     was not to exclude employees with experience from universities
     outside the State of West Bengal. The text, the context, and the
     objective of the Notification reveal that, its purpose was solely to
     distinguish between state-aided and private institutions. Classifying
     employees based on past teaching experience from Universities
     within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement,
     after having served for decades lacks nexus and discernible object.
     We have thus allowed the appeals with costs.
     3.1 When such decisions are subjected to strict scrutiny in judicial
         review, they unfortunately expose themselves as parochial,
         potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity. Executive
         decisions such as these seem minor or simple errors of
         perception but have far reaching consequences. Constitutional
         courts must be vigilant and identify such decisions, embedded
         in the nooks and crannies of public administration and set
         them aside, for they have the potentiality of triggering similar
         actions by other States and their Instrumentalities. The appellant
         asserted his right to equality, which claim like that of liberty is
         easier to address in a court of law. However, the principle of
         fraternity never asserts itself. It is the duty of the constitutional
         court to recognise its erosion, even in the bylanes of public
         administration and to restore the essential ‘We’ to ensure the
         unity and integrity of the nation.
4.   The short facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as under.
     The appellant was initially appointed as a member of the teaching
     staff at Cachar College, Silchar, State of Assam on 23.01.1991.
     Under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005,
     the college was taken over as a government college. After serving
     as such for a continuous period of 16 years, he applied in response
     to an advertisement dated 18.06.2007 issued by the Burdwan
1812                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     University, State of West Bengal for one vacancy in the post of
     Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science.
     He was selected and after working for some time he was promoted
     to the post of Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate
     Studies in Science on 26.01.2012.
5.   Almost a decade thereafter and at a time when the appellant already
     rendered over fourteen years of service, the State of West Bengal,
     issued a Memorandum dated 24.02.2021 increasing the age of
     retirement from 60 years to 65 years. The Memorandum provided that
     the benefit of increased age of retirement is extended only to those
     who had acquired a minimum of 10 years of continuous teaching
     experience in any State-aided university/college. The appellant
     made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the university on
     01.02.2023 claiming benefit of the Memorandum and sought fixation
     of his age of retirement to be on attaining 65 years.
6.   The University replied on 28.06.2003, informing that the appellant
     will retire on 31.08.2023 on attaining the age of 60 years, as he had
     no teaching experience in a ‘university or college aided by the State
     of West Bengal’. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition no.
     WPA 16596 of 2023 before the Calcutta High Court.
7.   By his order dated 28.08.2023, the Single Judge allowed the writ
     petition and held that the appellant was squarely covered by the
     Memorandum, and that he will only now retire on attaining the
     age of 65 years. It was held that the word “any” used before the
     phrase “State-aided university” was wide enough to include teaching
     experience in an aided university outside of West Bengal. It was held
     that if the stand of the University and the State Government was
     accepted, it will amount to adding the phrase “in West Bengal” after
     the phrase “in any State aided University or College” and supplying
     words to the Memorandum would be going beyond the bounds of
     judicial review. Impugning the order of the Single Judge, the State
     Government as well as the University filed separate writ appeals.
8.   Impugned Order: By way of the impugned common order, the
     Division Bench allowed the appeals and set-aside the judgment
     of the Single Judge. The Division Bench was of the view that the
     Memorandum has to be read in light of the parent statute, namely,
     the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976. The
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1813

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

     Bench observed that the said Act was amended on 17.03.2017, and
     expressions ‘Government-aided college’, ‘State-aided University’ and
     more importantly ‘State Government’ were defined to include only the
     Government of West Bengal. Taken collectively, the Division Bench
     says, a Court can come to the conclusion that the requirement of
     minimum 10 years of continuous teaching experience must be from
     universities or colleges aided by the State of West Bengal. Differing
     from the conclusions reached by the Single Judge, the Division
     Bench held that extending benefit of the Memorandum to experience
     acquired through universities or colleges outside of West Bengal will
     amount to supplying words to the Memorandum. It was reasoned that
     the word ‘any’ cannot be expanded, and the Memorandum must be
     understood in light of the statute under which it was issued, and the
     statutory provisions must be interpreted on the basis of the definition
     clauses introduced by the 2017 amendment to the 1976 Act.
9.   The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the
     Division Bench.
10. We heard Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel on behalf of
    the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Krishnan Venugopal,
    learned senior counsels for the State of West Bengal and University
    of Burdwan, respectively.
11. Before drawing our conclusions on the submission at the bar, it is
    necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and
    the Notification. Section 4 of the 1976 Act, as it stood prior to its
    amendment provides as follows:
           “Section 4. Retirement of Teachers: Every teacher of a
           university or any college affiliated to such university who
           is in receipt of pay in the revised scale shall retire from
           service on attaining the age of sixty years.”
12. The said provision was amended in the year 2017 through the West
    Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Amendment Act, 2017.
    After the amendment the said provision is as under:
           “Section 4. Retirement of Teachers: Every Full-time regular
           teacher, Principal and such other regular employees, who
           are in receipt of the State Government’s notified scale of
           pay and holding a substantive post in any State-aided
1814                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          University or Government-aided college shall retire from
          service on attaining such age as may be determined and
          notified in the official Gazette by the State Government
          from time to time.”
13. Along with the changes brought about in Section 4, the 1976
    amendment also defined the expressions ‘Government Aided College’,
    ‘State Government’ and ‘State Aided University’. The definitions
    introduced through Section 2 are as follows:
          “Section 2: In this Act, unless the context otherwise
          requires—
          […]
          (a) “Government-aided college” means a college receiving
          periodical pay packet from the State Government on
          account of salary and allowances of the teachers and
          other academic staff including the non-teaching employees
          of the college;
          […]
          (cc) “State Government” means the Government of West
          Bengal in the Higher Education, Science and Technology
          and Biotechnology Department; ‘;
          […]
          (e) “State-aided University” means a University constituted
          and incorporated by a State Act and receiving regular
          grants from the State Government.’
          […]”
14. Returning to the dispute under consideration, one fact which is glaring
    is that the appellant was selected to the post of Secretary, Faculty
    Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Science at the respondent
    university in the year 2007 on the basis of the qualifications that
    he possessed. The qualification inter alia included the service that
    he has rendered in Cachar College, Silchar in Assam. The said
    qualification as well as experience obtained by the appellant from the
    State of Assam did not operate against him at any point of time in
    his service from 2007 onwards. In fact, the appellant was promoted
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1815

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

     to the post of Senior Secretary, Faculty Council for Post-Graduate
     Studies in Science. For the first time when the appellant sought
     the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021, the respondents took
     the stand that the appellant did not have the qualification of having
     continuously served for 10 years in the State Aided University or
     College. Before considering the rival submission on the Notification
     and the inconsistent interpretations adopted by the Single and the
     Division Benches of the High Court, it is necessary to reproduce the
     Notification dated 24.02.2021:
                                                   “Date: 24.02.2021
                               NOTIFICATION
           Consequent upon enhancement of the retirement age of
           the State-aided University teachers and Govt./Govt. aided
           College teachers up to 65 years, the matter regarding
           enhancement of the retirement age of the State-aided
           University Registrars, Controller of Examinations, Inspector
           of Colleges and Dean of Student’s Welfare, Deputy
           Registrar, Deputy Controller of Examinations, Deputy
           Inspector of Colleges and Secretary, Council of PG & UG
           Studies and College Council of the State aided Universities
           with teaching background/experience in any State-aided
           University or College, was under consideration of the State
           Govt. from sometime past.
           After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor is
           pleased to enhance the retirement age of the Registrar,
           Controller of Examinations, Inspector of Colleges and
           Dean of Student’s Welfare, Deputy Registrar, Deputy
           Controller of Examinations, Deputy Inspector of Colleges
           and Secretary, Council of PG & UG Studies and College
           Council of the State aided Universities having continuous
           teaching background/experience of minimum 10 years
           in any State-aided University or College, up to Sixty five
           (65) years with effect from the date of issuance of this
           notification, for smooth running of the academic and
           administrative activities, in terms of Section 4 of the West
           Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 as
           amended from time to time.”
1816                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


15. The university has taken the stand that the Notification requires to be
    interpreted by taking into account the statute that governs the field.
    Referring to Section 4 of the Act, Mr. Gupta has submitted that the
    Notification must be understood in terms of Section 4, as amended
    in 1976 where the relevant terms are defined under Section 2 (a),
    (cc) and (e). Taking the same stand as that of the Division Bench
    of the High Court, it is submitted that requirement of continuous
    teaching background/experience of minimum 10 years must be only
    from West Bengal State-aided University or College.
16. We do not agree. The intendment of Section 4, even as it stood
    before its amendment in 2017 was to provide that employees of a
    university or any college affiliated to such university shall retire from
    service on attaining the age of 60 years, subject to the condition that
    they are in receipt of pay in the revised scales. The important part
    of this provision is that the teacher must be receiving scales of pay.
    In other words, the emphasis is on regular employment. The same
    principle is reiterated with further conditions even when Section 4 was
    amended in 2017. As per the amended provision, a teacher covered
    thereunder must be, i) a regular employee, ii) receiving notified scales
    of pay, and must be iii) holding a substantive post. The purpose of
    using the phrase “in any State-aided University or Government-aided
    College” is only to denote that the employer, being a University or
    College must be an aided institution as against institutions which
    do not receive aid. Once an employee satisfies these conditions,
    the statutory provision enables the State Government to notify the
    date of retirement.
17. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant was a regular
    employee, having joined the university way back in 2007 and
    continued in service uninterruptedly till 2021, by which time he had
    also gained promotion to the post of Sr. Secretary.
18. The Notification dated 24.02.2021 simply incorporates the expression
    “in any State-aided University or Government-aided College” as in
    Section 4, conveying the context of employment in an aided institution.
    The purpose of the Notification is not to exclude those who had
    acquired the 10 years of teaching experience from universities or
    colleges outside West Bengal. The Notification itself provides that
    enhanced age of retirement was granted to teachers of universities
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1817

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

     and colleges and now a policy decision is taken to extend the
     same benefit to non-teaching staff such as Registrars and Deputy
     Registrars, Controllers and Deputy Controllers of Examinations,
     Inspectors and Deputy Inspectors of colleges apart from Dean of
     Student’s Welfare and Secretary Council of PG and UG Studies.
     While granting such benefits, the Notification prescribes a condition of
     teaching experience of 10 years. While prescribing the said condition
     of 10 years, the Notification employed the same expression, “in any
     State-aided University or Government-aided College”, to indicate
     that the employment must be in a university or a college receiving
     State- aid. Without appreciating the text of the Notification and
     also the context in which the expression used, the State and the
     University have wrongly insisted that the appellant must have had
     the teaching experience of 10 years from a university or a college
     within the State of West Bengal.
19. In any event, excluding those who had teaching experience from
    a university or a college outside the State of West Bengal for the
    purpose of granting the benefit of extended date of retirement
    does not stand to reason. By virtue of the Notification, the benefit
    of extended date of retirement given to teachers is now extended
    to non-teaching employees, for whom teaching experience may in
    fact not be relevant. Even assuming that such experience has some
    bearing on the performance of their duties during the extendable
    period of service, there is no purpose or object in confining such
    experience only through teaching in university or college in West
    Bengal.
20. Extension of the retirement date, dependent on past experience of
    teaching in a university or a college located in West Bengal alone
    has no object to subserve and as such classification of employers
    into those who have acquired teaching experience in West Bengal
    and those who acquired such experience outside West Bengal is
    artificial, discriminatory and arbitrary. The stand taken by the state
    and the university is illegal and violative of the equality norm as
    enunciated by this Court.
21. To insist on past teaching experience of 10 years within the State of
    West Bengal for extension of service, particularly when the employee
    has already worked for fourteen years is arbitrary and illegal.
1818                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


22. Under similar circumstances in J.S. Rukmani v. Govt. of T.N.,1 this
    Court has held:
            “[…] If that be so, then it is difficult to see how the widow
            of a government servant who served the former State of
            Madras in the same manner and who retired before the
            reorganisation of the States should not be entitled to family
            pension under the notification dated May 26, 1979 merely
            because the place where her husband was serving at the
            date of superannuation subsequently came to form part
            of the territories of a State other than the State of Tamil
            Nadu as a result of the reorganisation of the States. The
            object of the notification dated May 26, 1979 does not
            warrant any such distinction to be made between the
            widows of one class of government servants and the
            widows of another class merely on the basis of the place
            where the government servant last served at the time of
            superannuation, although in both cases the government
            servant served the same State, namely, the former State
            of Madras and superannuated before the reorganisation
            of the States…”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

23. Equally relevant are the observations of this Court in Harshendra
    Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan.2 The facts therein were that the
    State held an examination for the recruitment to the post of Gram
    Sewak-cum-Paden Sachiv. The Notification of recruitment awarded
    extra marks to applicants coming from a particular district (weightage
    on the basis of place of residence). This Court struck down the
    condition down and held as under:
            “10. The two considerations pleaded by the State do not
            at all appeal to us as they are based on wrong factual
            assumptions or sweeping generalizations which have
            a tendency to introduce artificial classification without
            in any way advancing the avowed objective. We have


1   (1984) Supp. SCC 650.
2   (2002) 6 SCC 393.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               1819

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

           already rejected such contentions in the judgment just
           now delivered in relation to the appointment of primary
           school teachers. As it is contended that Gram Sewaks-
           cum-Secretaries of Panchayats are concerned with local
           self-governance and therefore different considerations
           would apply vis-à-vis their appointments, we have thought
           it fit to refer to and deal with this contention separately
           in these appeals, though, we are relieved of the need for
           detailed discussion in view of our judgment in the teachers’
           batch of appeals.
           […]
           12. The second ground urged by the State is equally
           irrelevant and untenable. Most of the reasons given by us
           in the judgment just delivered in teachers’ cases will hold
           good to reject this plea. No factual details nor material
           has been placed before us to substantiate that the spoken
           language and dialect varies from district to district. It will
           not be reasonable to assume that an educated person
           belonging to a contiguous district or districts will not be able
           to effectively communicate with the people of the district in
           which he is appointed or that he would be unfamiliar with
           the living conditions and culture of that district. He cannot
           be regarded as an alien in a district other than his native
           district. If any classification has to be done in this regard, it
           should be based on a scientific study but not on some broad
           generalization. If any particular region or area has some
           peculiar socio-cultural or linguistic features warranting
           a differential treatment for the purpose of deploying
           personnel therein, that could only be done after conducting
           a survey and identifying such regions or districts. That is
           the minimum which needs to be done. There is no factual
           nor rational basis to treat each district as a separate unit
           for the purpose of offering public employment. Above all, it
           is wrong to assume that the candidates belonging to rural
           areas will be better suited to serve those areas than the
           candidates living in nearby towns. The criterion of merit
           cannot be allowed to be diluted by taking resort to such
           artificial differentiation and irrelevant assumptions. On
1820                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            the material placed before us, we have no hesitation in
            holding that the addition of bonus marks to the applicants
            belonging to the same district and the rural areas of that
            district would amount to discrimination which falls foul of
            Articles 14 and 16.”
24. Returning to the facts of the present appeals, there is evidently no
    material to show how an employee who has already served the
    university for fourteen years will be better qualified for extension of
    service only if his or her past experience of teaching is only in State
    of West Bengal. The minimum that the State or the University needs
    to prove is to place on record the material that would demonstrate
    that non-teaching posts, with respect to which the state has decided
    to extend the facility of extended date of retirement, somehow require
    experience gained through teaching in West Bengal and this would
    also require demonstrating the distinctive and unique skill obtained
    through teaching in the State of West Bengal alone. Further, it is
    also necessary to demonstrate the nexus that the experience of
    teaching in the State of West Bengal has to the extended period
    of service. There is absolutely no material to this effect. We see
    nothing more than an artificial classification. It is a classic case of a
    suspect classification intended to sub-serve only parochial interests
    and nothing more. To insist on such a requirement for extension of
    date of retirement is totally unjustified.
25. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal appearing on behalf of the university has
    submitted that the appellant has not challenged the validity of the
    amendments made to Section 2 introducing sub-clauses (a), (cc) and
    (e) defining the expressions used in Section 4. He submitted that it
    is not sufficient to challenge just the Notification dated 28.06.2023
    retiring the appellant on completion of 60 years and that he should
    have challenged the Notification dated 24.02.2021 as well as the
    amended Act 2017 substituting Section 4 and introducing Sections
    2(a), (cc) and (e). For this purpose, he relied on the decision of
    this Court in Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan,3 holding that a
    subordinate legislation must bear the same meaning as that of the
    parent Act.


3   (1985) 4 SCC 404.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1821

                       Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v.
                    The State of West Bengal Service & Ors.

26. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant to
    challenge the amended provisions as our conclusions are based on
    the plain and simple interpretation of the Notification dated 24.02.2021
    as well as Section 4 of the Act. Further, it is well-established that
    statutory definitions must be interpreted in their context. In fact,
    Section 2 itself provides that “In the Act, unless the context otherwise
    requires….”. In Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
    Fraser and Ross4, this Court held as follows:
            “6. […] It is well settled that all statutory definitions or
            abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification
            variously expressed in the definition clauses which
            created them and it may be that even where the definition
            is exhaustive inasmuch as the word defined is said to
            mean a certain thing, it is possible for the word to have
            a somewhat different meaning in different sections of
            the Act depending upon the subject or the context. That
            is why all definitions in statutes generally begin with the
            qualifying words similar to the words used in the present
            case, namely, unless there is anything repugnant in the
            subject or context. Therefore in finding out the meaning
            of the word “insurer” in various sections of the Act, the
            meaning to be ordinarily given to it is that given in the
            definition clause. But this is not inflexible and there may
            be sections in the Act where the meaning may have to be
            departed from on account of the subject or context in which
            the word has been used and that will be giving effect to the
            opening sentence in the definition section, namely, unless
            there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. In
            view of this qualification, the court has not only to look at
            the words but also to look at the context, the collocation
            and the object of such words relating to such matter and
            interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use
            of the words under the circumstances.”
27. We have already examined and concluded that the text, the context,
    the purpose as well as the object of providing, “continuous teaching


4   1960 SCC OnLine SC 49.
1822                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     experience of 10 years in any university” as a condition in the
     Notification dated 24.02.2021 is not at all to exclude such experience
     from universities or colleges outside the State of West Bengal. Thus,
     the submission based on definition clauses is rejected as misplaced.
28. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set aside
    the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by
    the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT 1762 of
    2023, CAN 1 of 2023, CAN 2 of 2023 and MAT 1705 of 2023. The
    Notification dated 28.06.2023 denying the benefit of the Notification
    dated 24.02.2021 is set-aside by declaring that the appellant will be
    entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 24.02.2021.
29. The appellant will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/-.


     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain