Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. The aforesaid well-known maxim was described as a principle of logic and commonsense and not merely a technical rule of construction. Reference may be had to the decision in the case of B. Shankara Rao Badami Vs. State of Mysore, [1969 (1) SCC 9] and followed in Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398] [paragraph 70]. 53. In our opinion, the aforesaid principle squarely applies in the present context and for the reasons given hereinabove and hereinafter, we would interpret Regulation 31 read with Regulation 100 to mean that the sanction of prior approval in respect of the termination of a Class-IV employee would stand excluded. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in Daya Shanakar Tiwari (supra) to that extent does not lay down the law correctly and, therefore, its approval by the Division Bench in the case of Principal Rashtriya Inter College, (supra) also cannot be said to be laying correct law. 54. There is yet another reason to come to this conclusion, which has also been taken note of in the case of Pujari Yadav (supra). The provision of appeal against an order of termination passed by the Head of the Institution lies to the Committee of Management. The order of the Committee of Management can be put in jeopardy in a further appeal before the District Inspector Schools. The hierarchy so provided, therefore, clearly amplifies the intention of the legislature that a Class-IV employee would have the benefit of appeals to the higher authorities at two stages. If a prior approval or sanction was intended before the punishment to be awarded, then the District Inspector of Schools would be supposed to go into the merits of such a punishment. That is the purpose for a prior approval or sanction, which requires the sanctioning authority to examine an order of punishment in depth before proceeding to grant sanction. It is for this reason that Regulation 37 quoted hereinabove, makes it imperative for the punishing authority to send all documents including reports to the Inspector of Schools for approval. 55. There is yet another reason to come to the same conclusion. Regulation 37 specifically excludes for sending of any such report to the Inspector in the case of Class-IV employees and all proceedings in relation to Regulation 37 have to be undertaken by the appointing authority. The aforesaid statutory provision, therefore, does not allow the sending of any such documents to the Inspector in the case of Class-IV employees. It injuncts the sending of any such papers to the District Inspector of Schools for examination. In our opinion, the intention of the legislature is clear enough that the District Inspector of Schools is not required to examine the material on the basis whereof any punishment has been awarded to a Class- IV employee. To our mind, there is no purpose to seek prior approval or sanction when the Inspector cannot examine the documents, which are necessary for granting such sanction. To interpret it otherwise, would be to do violation to the procedure, which specifically states that all proceedings in this regard have to be performed by the appointing authority, namely the Head of the Institution. If we interpret the provisions making it compulsory to obtain a sanction, then the aforesaid procedure as engrained in
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1067 Regulation 37 would be rendered inoperative. There being no requirement of sending the papers to the Inspector, the intention appears to be clear that the role of the Inspector stands excluded at that stage. The question of granting prior sanction without any purpose would be a meaningless exercise, and therefore, we would refrain from rendering an interpretation that leads to futility. 56. While applying the rules of harmonious construction, the Court has to be cautious in interpreting the provisions, which may lead to anomalous results. We find it apt to record that the rules of harmonious construction, while interpreting such statutes, immediately come into play in a situation of the present kind and reference in this connection can be made from Interpretation of Statues by Justice Markandey Katju in which it has been stated as follow: "Where different interpretations of a statute are possible, the court can adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible as it can be presumed that the legislature would have used the words in the sense which least offends our sense of justice. Similarly, if the harmonical construction leads to some absurd or repugnant result or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, it may be departed from so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency. There may be cases where there appears to be inconsistency or repugnancy in a statute and in such cases the principle of harmonious construction is applied. This is, however, subject to the principle that the special rule will override the general rule. Similarly, it is ordinarily not open to the court to add words to a statute on the grounds that there is an omission in the words used in the statute." (Interpretation of Statutes, by Justice Markandey Katju, Judge Supreme Court of India.) 57. In the case of Padmasundara Rao and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, [AIR 2002 SCC 1334], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the principle of casus omissus can be permitted to be pressed into service in case of a clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred. 58. In the case of Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council Vs. Newport Corporation, [(1951) 2 All E.R. 839], the remarks of Lord Denning in the Court of Appeals has been quoted, which read as follows : "We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and Ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." 59. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh [AIR 1953 SCC 394] that the Court has to avoid a construction, which may render devoid any part of the statute. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin and others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577] in paragraph 37 that the use of negative words are mandatory in character and the Court has to proceed accordingly. Sounding a caution to the Courts while interpreting a Rule, the
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14:
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24:
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26:
3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28:
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 41 and 42:
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 43 and 44: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 93: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?