Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

550
Karnataka PSC
opinion of the learned Judges who decided them, that the several cases relied on by the
Respondent were not correctly decided.”
(5) KANTA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA - (2003) 4 SCC 753, para 8.
“According to Rule 7(b), the Appointing Authority is the Commandant and since the DIG
is of higher rank, there is no illegality in the order passed by him in passing the order of
dismissal. Just because the IG’s approval is required for the purpose of appointment or
promotion, the position of the Commandant as the Appointing Authority is not changed
and the IG does not become the Appointing Authority. If the submission made is accepted,
it would mean addition of words or expressions in Rule 27. It is not a case of casus
omissus as contended. A construction which requires for its support addition of words
has to be avoided. The words of a statute never shared, in interpretation, be added or
substracted from without almost a necessity. It is contrary to all rules of construction to
read words into a statute unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Courts cannot reframe
the words used by the Legislature as they have no power to Legislate. A matter
which for the sake of argument, should have been provided but has not been provided
for in a statute cannot be supplied by the courts as to do so will be legislation and not
construction. (See JOHNSON v. MORETON AND BALIRAM WAMAN HIRAY
DR.JUSTICE B.LENTIN) There is no presumption that a casus omissus exists, and
language permitting the courts should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none.
Therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench in holding that the order of dismissal
passed by the DIG was legal, does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.”
14.10 In the light of these decisions, Mr. Rajagopal submits, the Respondents are to be held
to be eligible for reservation under Other Backward Classes, they being in-service candidates. Any
addition of ‘number of years’ to be so eligible will be rewriting the rule, rendering the rule unworkable
and contrary to object of the Rule and this will create discrimination within the inservice candidates
and also amounts to presuming an omission which is not there.
14.11 Regarding bifurcation of PWD and WRD, Mr. Rajagopal submitted that a Full Bench
of this Tribunal in Application No.1429 to 1432/2004 decided on 30.8.2005 has categorically held
that there has been no bifurcation of Engineering cadres and services as between Public Works
Department and Water Resources Department and it is a combined cadre. This Tribunal has also
declared that as of now it is a single cadre and single service and has also indicated steps to be taken
for bifurcation of the services. He further submitted that the order of this Tribunal is subject matter of
challenge in Writ Petition No.24536/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka. Initially the High
Court had granted an interim order staying the operation of the Order of this Tribunal but later the High
Court has vacated the interim order on 7.3.2008 and after the vacation of the interim order, options
have been called for from the employees as to whether they are willing to continue in the Public Works