B.PREMANAND & OTHERS versus MOHAN KOIKAL & OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 16-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 932 
B.PREMANAND & OTHERS 
v. 
MOHAN KOIKAL & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007) 
MARCH 16, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Kera/a State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959: 
r.27(c) - Seniority - Post of Block Development Officer -
C lnter-se seniority between the general category candidates 
(private respondents) and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe candidates (appellants) - Rank list for the respondents 
prepared after due selection in 1987 but effective advice sent 
in 1993 and appointment made in 1993 - Rank list with regard 
o to appellants published in 1992 and first effective advice made 
in 1992 and appointed during the year 1992 - r.27(C) states 
that seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective 
advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State 
Government for appointment - r.27(C) is plain and clear -
E Therefore, the literal rule of interpretation would apply to it -
In view of r.27(C), appellants were senior to the private 
respondents, as the advice of their appointments was made 
prior to that of the respondents -No doubt, equity may be in 
favour of the respondents because they were selected earlier, 
F but in case of conflict between equity and the law, it is the law 
which must prevail - The law, which is contained in r.27(c), is 
clearly in favour of the appellants - Service Law - Seniority 
• - Equity - Interpretation of statutes. 
Mis. Hiralal Ratanlal vs. STO AIR 1973 SC 1034 - relied 
G on. 
H 
Dali/ah Sojah vs. State of Kera/a & Others (1998) 9 SCC 
641 - distinguished. 
932 
B.PREMANAND & ORS. v. MOHAN KOIKAL & ORS. 933 
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612 
A 
- referred to. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Literal Rule of Interpretation - First and foremost 
principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of B 
interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation - The other ; 
rules of interpretation e.g. the mischief rule, purposive 
interpretation etc.can only be resorted to when the plain words 
of a statute areambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or 
if read literally nullify the very object of the statute - Where 
C 
the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, 
recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other 
than the literal rule - Departure from the literal rule should 
only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should 
be judicial restraint in this connection. 
D 
Mimansa Rules of Interpretation - Held: Are India's 
traditional principles of interpretation used for thousand of 
years by Indian jurists. 
Principles of interpretation - Held: Are not principles of E 
law but are only a methodology for explaining the meaning 
of words used in a text ~ Any system of interpretation which· 
can help to resolve a difficulty can be utilised. 
Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, 
F 
India AIR 2004 SC 4219; Prakash Nath Khanna v. C.I. T. 
2004 (9) SCC 686; Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv 
Anand 2004 (11) SCC 625; Government of Andhra Pradesh 
v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association 2004 (6) SCC 
210; J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 
G 
1405; State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Govind Singh JT 2004(10) 
SC 349; Jinia Keotin v. K. S. Manjhi 2003 (1) SCC 730; Shiv 
Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers 
AIR 2003 SC 2434; Grasim Industries Limited v. Collector of 
Customs 2002 (4) SCC 297; Union of India v. Hamsoli Devi 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A 2002 (7) SCC 273; District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and 
Steel Company 2002 (7) SCC 358; Gurudevdatta VKSSS . 
Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 980; S. Mehta 
v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (8) SCC 257; Patangrao 
Kaddam v. Prithviraj Sajirao Yadav Deshmugh AIR 2001 SC 
B 1121; CIT v. Keshab Chandra Manda/ AIR 1950 SC 265; 
Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. C.I. T. 2003(5) SCC 590; 
Narsiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal AIR 2003 SC 1543; Bhaiji 
v. Sub-Divisional Officer, .Thandla 2003(1) SCC 692 - relied 
on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Grundy v. Pinniger (1852) 1 LJ Ch 405 - referred to. 
'Of Law & Men : Papers and Addresses of Felix 
Frankfurter; G.P. Sihgh's Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 
9th Edn. -
r~ferred to. 
Mimansa Rules of Interpretation - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1998) 9 sec 641 
distinguished 
Para 12 
AIR 1991 SC 1612 
referred to 
Para 12 
AIR 1973 SC 1034 
relied on 
Para 15 
AIR 2004 SC 4219 
relied
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.