N. SATYANARAYANA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 12-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
G 
H 
692 
M. SATYANARAYANA 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 
MARCH 12, 1986 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH JJ.] 
A. Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule SA of order XV - When 
•
the 
certificate 
issued 
under 
Article 
133(1) (bi 
of 
the 
Constitution by the High Court is unwarranted on the facts of 
the case the certificate TIP.1st be revoked and the appeal be 
dismissed. 
B. Construction of a statute, explained - Construction 
of the word "and" in clalise (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka 
Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules 
1984 explained - Subb-clause (a) cannot be read independently 
of sub-clause (b). 
The 
appellant who 
is a 
student of some 
academic 
distinction and ability sought admission to the Ist year of 
MBBS Course under the special category ' being a son of a 
freedoni fighter or political sufferer within the meaning of 
clauae (iii) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges 
(Selection of Candidates for Admission), Rules 1984 who had 
participated in 1942 Movement and was imprisoned from 10th of 
September, 1942 to 2nd of October, 1942. Since he was not 
granted admission under that category, 
he filed a writ ~ 
petition before the Karnataka High Court contending that 
sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Rule 4 of the 1984 Rules 
should be read independently as well as sub-clause (b) not 
only of each other but also what follows by way of proviso 
though not so mentioned. Both the Writ Petition and a further 
appeal to the Division Bench were dismissed. However, the Hign 
Court granted a certificate under Article 133(l}(b) of the 
Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : 1. Under Rule SA of Order XV of the Supreme Court 
Rules, 1966 when a party to whom a certificate of fitness to 
appeal has been granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court 
M. SATYANARAYANA v. STATE 
693 
~may, either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to 
all necessary parties or may 
make 
such orders as 
the 
circumstances of the case may require. 
In this case the 
questiop involved is a simple one and the intention and the 
purpose of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection 
of Candidates for Admission) Rules 1984 is manifest and in the 
language there is no difficulty. The certificate under Article 
133(i)(b) of the Constitution to the effect that in the 
.. ,opinion of the Kamataka High Court the question involved 
needs to be decided by the Supreme Court is unwarranted. 
[696 D-j!] 
2.1 A statute cannot be construed merely with reference 
to grrumier. Statute, whenever the language permits, IDJSt be 
construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the 
·-intention and purpose of the legislature. The expression "and" 
in clause (Hi) of Rule 4 has generally cU1111lative effect 
requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins 
together and it is the antithesis of "or". The 
expression 
"and" in the instant case, cannot be read disjunctively. 
[696 C-D] 
A.L Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] s.c.R. 88 at 
126; and lshwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P., 
(1969] 1 s.c.R. 219 applied. 
2. 2 It is not possible to hold that sub-clause (a) 
should be read independently of sub-clause (b). If the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
-
expression "and" in clause (a) is read independently then 
there was no need for him to suffer at all and mere 
participation would be enough to make him a political 
sufferer. · If it were to be held so it would defeat the 
F 
ratioruile the Rllle 4 defining a political sufferer or freedom 
fighter in the Rules. (695 G-ll; 696 C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 600 of 
1986. 
'-:-· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1985 of the 
Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2665 of 1985. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 S.C.R. 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J, This is an appeal by certificate 1, 
under article 133 (1)(b) of the Constitution from the decision 
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismiss-
ing the appeal against the judgment of the learned , single 
Judge of that~h Court. 
The appellant herein who is a 
~student of some academic distinction and ability sought admi-
ssion to the 1st year of M.B.B.S. Course to the Directorate of 
Medical Education, Karnataka. The appellant was an applicant 
to one of the Government seats in the Medical Colleges managed ,.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.