M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 08-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 629 
-j. 
t 
A 
- I 
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. 
!-
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2251 of 2009) 
APRIL 8, 2009 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules -
Promotion - Post of Deputy Tehsildars - Preferential 
treatment to directly recruited Assistants over the promotee c 
Assistants under the Rule - Direct recruits to be placed above 
senior promotee Assistants on completion of five years of 
service - Validity of - Held: Both directly recruited Assistants 
-!-
and promotee Assistants are integrated into one cadre of 
Assistants - Many promotee Assistants were graduates or D 
post graduates - They have received same kind of training 
in the cadre of Assistant for a longer duration - Hence, 
impugned rule is to be read down - Validity of the Rules to 
the extent that it gives preference to directly recruited 
Assistants over promoted Assistants who are non-graduates 
E 
is upheld - However, it is not applicable to promotees who 
are graduates - Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 14 and 
16 - Interpretation of Statutes. 
~ J_ 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was with regard to the validity of the amended 
F 
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules by which 
directly recruited Assistants were given preferential 
treatment by placing them above the senior promotee 
Assistants and making them eligible for promotion as 
G 
Deputy Tehsildars on completion of five years of service 
, 
_> 
as Assistants. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
629 
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 5 S.C.R. 
* 
A 
HELD: 1. The validity of Tamil Nadu Revenue 
Subordinate Service Rules to the extent that it gives 
preference to the directly recruited Assistants over the 
promoted Assistants who are non graduates is upheld 
but is inapplicable to promotees who are graduates. 
B [Para 31] [644-D] 
2.1. To save a statutory provision from the vice of 
unconstitutionality sometimes a restricted or extended 
interpretation of the statute has to be given. This is 
c because it is a well-settled principle of interpretation that 
the Court should make every effort to save a statute from 
becoming unconstitutional. If on giving one interpretation 
the statute becomes unconstitutional and on another 
interpretation it will be constitutional, then the Court 
D 
should prefer the latter on the ground that the Legislature 
is presumed not to have intended to have exceeded its 
jurisdiction. Sometimes to uphold the constitutional 
validity the statutory provision has to be read down. 
[Para 28 and 29) [643-C, D; 643-E] 
E 
2.2. As regards the training, it is satisfied that the 
promotees also have undergone the same experience as 
those of direct recruits, and in fact the former have 
usually longer experience than the direct recruits. Hence 
this cannot be a valid basis for discrimination against the 
F promotees. [Para 18] [639-C) 
A -
2.3. Many of the promotees in fact were graduates or 
post graduates even when they joined as Junior 
Assistants, and some became graduates or post 
G 
graduates after joining as Junior Assistants, hence there 
was no rational basis for denying equality of treatment 
to these graduates/post graduates vis-a-vis the direct 
recruits. If a promotee Assistant is also a graduate then 
• 
.~ 
there is no valid basis for discrimination against him, and 
he must be treated at par with the directly recruited 
H 
..1 
-
' '. 
+-
_J 
> ) 
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 631 
ORS. 
Assistant because he has also got a degree. Hence the A 
impugned amendment is to be read down in order to save 
it from becoming violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution and interpret it as inapplicable to those 
promotee Assistants who are also graduates/post 
graduates. The impugned amendment will only enable the B 
direct recruits to be placed above those promotee 
Assistants who are non-graduates for the purpose of 
promotion as Deputy Tehsildar. [Paras 19, 21, 22 and 27] 
[639-D, E; 643-B; 640-C] 
2.4. Both the directly recruited Assistants and C 
promoted Assistants have been integrated into one cadre 
of Assistants. Even after this integration for further 
classification for promotion higher educational 
qualifications can possibly be a rational basis, but there 
can certainly be no further classification between direct D 
recruits and those promotee Assistants who have 
acquired the graduation qual

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.