LexALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC. versus GEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1795 : 2024 INSC 1003 Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 12411-12414 of 2024) 18 December 2024 [Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reading down Reg.10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018. Headnotes† University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 – Reg.10(f)(iii) – Exception was taken by the High Court to the methodology adopted by Allahabad University and Allahabad Degree College in shortlisting candidates for interview for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit in terms of Reg.10 of the 2018 Regulations – The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to read down Reg.10 and held that the same would apply only where past services are required to be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), i.e., to the posts of Associate Professor and Professor: Held: First and foremost, the Division Bench of the High Court has not found Reg.10(f)(iii) to be ultra vires on any of the available grounds, i.e., either on the ground of legislative incompetence or that it offends any of the Constitutional rights and/or any provision of the UGC Act or that there is excessive delegation; rather, the Division Bench has read down Reg.10(f)(iii) on the specious * Author 1796 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports ground that the construction it has placed “would obviate the need to examine the challenge laid to the regulation 10(f)(iii) and the general instructions appended to the advertisement in that regard” – This course of action was impermissible – ‘Reading down’ can be resorted to whenever a provision, which is questioned, is found to be ultra vires by the court but there is scope for the court to read the same down in a manner so as to save it from being declared constitutionally invalid – The line of reasoning weighing with the Division Bench that the need to examine the challenge would stand obviated if Reg.10(f)(iii) were construed in the manner it did is, thus, plainly erroneous – Once Reg.10 specifically refers to counting of previous regular service, whether national or international, inter alia as Assistant Professor, the Division Bench in the exercise of its judicial review powers could not have held that Reg.10 has no application to one aspiring for appointment as an Assistant Professor – Law is well settled that courts cannot add words to a statute or read words into it, which are not there; at the same time, it cannot also read a statute in a manner that results in deletion of words which are there – This is for the simple reason that the court has no power to legislate; hence, it cannot rewrite the legislation – Bearing this principle in mind, the Division Bench was wholly unjustified in its approach. [Paras 42, 43] Interpretation of Statutes – Intention of the Legislature: Held: A situation could arise where plain and literal reading of a statute could lead to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose for which the enactment was introduced and, the situation, necessarily compels the court to adopt that construction which would carry out the obvious intention of the legislature – The court would be justified in doing so, but it must be cautious that while it irons out the creases in the material it does not alter the material of which the legislation is woven. [Para 18] Interpretation of Statutes – On the Principle of reading down: Held: Whenever a court is seized of a question of vires of a primary legislation/ subordinate legislation or a part of it, a presumption of constitutionality is attached to the impugned provision and the courts would ordinarily strive to save the impugned provision from being declared ultra vires; however, there could be situations where the subordinate legislation (like a rule or a regulation) is challenged [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1797 Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.