MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. & ORS. versus SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 25-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 91 
MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. & ORS. 
v. 
SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Maharashtra University Health Sciences Act, 1998 - ss. 
2(35) and 53 - Complaint by unapproved lecturers against 
college and its authorities -
Grievance Committee 
C 
constituted u/s. 53 taking action against the authorities - High 
Court, following the principle of ejusdem generis held that 
unapproved teacher since do not come within the definition 
of 'teachers' uls. 2(35), the Committee has no jurisdiction to 
take cognizance of the complaint - Held: Definition of teacher o 
uls. 2(35) is wide enough to include even unapproved teacher 
- Grievance Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain 
complaint and undertake the statutory exercise conferred ul 
s. 53 of the Act - Matter remitted to High Court. 
Interpretation of Statutes - When general words are 
E 
juxtaposed with specific words, general words cannot be read 
in isolation - Their colour and contents are to be derived from 
their context - The ejusdem generis principle applies only 
when a contrary intention does not appear - No Statute can 
be interpreted in such a way as to render a part of it otiose -
F 
Doctrines/Principles - ,Principle of "ejusdem generis" 
Applicability of - Discussed. 
On the complaint from respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the 
lady l~cturers and employees of the respondent-college), 
of ill-treatment and sexual harassment against the G 
authorities of the said college, the Grievance Com_mittee 
of the University by its communication directed the 1st 
and 2nd respondents to take steps against the 3rd and 
4th respondents with a direction to suspend them and it 
. 
. 
91 
H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A was also directed that the 5th respondent may be 
reinstated. It was also directed that approval. granted in 
respect of the service of 3rd and 4th respondent be 
frozen. The respondent-college refused to comply with 
the direction issued by the University. 
B 
Assailing those communications, the college 
authorities and those two teachers flle~ a '!Nrit petition 
contending that the University had n? a~thority t~ issue 
those communications. The High Court, following the 
1 
principle of "ejusdem gener{s" held that 5th and 6th 
C respondent, being unapproved teachers, do not come 
within the definition of 'teachers' u/s. 2(35) and hence, the 
Grievance Committee constituted u/s. '53 of the Act, has 
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of their complaint. 
Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Allowing th~ appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of combined reading of Section 
2(35) with Section 53 of Maharashtra University Health 
Sciences Act, 1998 in respect of unapproved teachers, it 
E cannot be said that ·Grievance Committee has no 
jurisdiction to entertain complaint and undertake the 
statutory exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of the 
Act. [Para 20] [102-B] 
2. The definition of teachers u/s. 2(35) is wide enough' 
F 
to include even unapproved teacher. The definition has 
two parts, the first part deals with full time approved 
Demonstrators, Tutors; Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers 
etc. and the second part deals with other persons 
teaching or giving instructions on full time basis in 
G affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the 
University. [Para 21] [102-C-D] 
3. Even though the approved teachers and those 
'other persons' who are teaching and giving instructions 
H fall in two different classes both are encompassed with 
MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SC. v. SATCHIKITSA 
93 
PRASARAK MANDAL 
the definition of teacher u/s. 2(35) of the Act. The word 
A 
'and' before 'other persons' is disjunctive and indicate a 
different class of people. [Para 22] [102-E] 
4. A class is a conceptual creation taking within its 
fold numerous categories of persons with similar 
characteristics. Here in the group of 'other persons' who, 
8 
on full time basis, are teaching or giving instructions in 
colleges affiliated with the University and they are also 
teachers even if they are unapproved. This seems to be 
the purport of Section 2(35) of the Act. [Para 23] (102-F-
~ 
c 
5. The High Court has not properly appreciated the 
principle of ejusdem generis in understanding the scope 
of Section 2(35) rfw Section 53 of the Act. The expression 
"ejusdem generis" which means "of the same kind or 0 
nature" is a principle of c

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