NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY versus DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 30-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 154 
I r< 
A 
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY 
v. 
,. 
DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH ~10, 2009 
<:. 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Kera/a State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 -
Rules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - Post of Medical Officer (Indian 
System of Medicine) - Reservation in appointments - Held: 
High Court's decision to read a proviso into rule 14(a) is based 
on conjectures and surmises as to what the legislature 
,. 
D intended - Hence not a legitimate method of interpretation -
)---
High Court's reliance on annexure to Rule 15 is also not 
correct - Rule 14(b) has to be read consistently with Rule 
14(a} - The correct interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 is that the 
Public Service Commission should adopt each batch of 20 
E candidates as a separate un;t for the purpose of reservation 
and not take the entire list as one unit. 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION: 
~ 
If two interpretations of the Rules are possible, the one 
F that favows the consistent past practice should ordinarily be 
'r c 
preferred unless it is clearly in violation of the Rules. 
Courts should not add or delete words in a statute or rule. 
When a statute is clear, it has to be read as it is and the 
G literal rule of interpretation has to be applied. 
In these appeals against the judgment of the Kerala 
... 
' 
High Court, the point involved was whether a correct 
constr~ction has been placed on Rules 14 tQ 17 of the 
H 
154 
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 
155 
ORS. 
"' \ 
Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 by the A 
.. 
Kerala Public Service Commission while selecting 
candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Indian system 
of Medicine). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
> 
HELD: 1.1. Reading Rules 14 (a) and (b) along with 
Rule 14 (d) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services 
Rules, 1958 the correct interpretation of the Rules is that 
a common rank list as per merit for all the successful 
candidates in respect of selection to the vacancies c 
notified by the Public Service Commission should be 
prepared, and reservation should be applied with 
reference to units of 20. That is, the iirst 20 most 
meritorious candidates, that Is, from Serial No. 1 to 20 in 
that common rank list should first be considered for the D 
-.f 
purpose of reservation. At that stage, candidates from 
Serial No. 21 and below are 11ot to be eonsidered. Out of 
these 20 most meritorious candidates, the appointments 
have then to be made in accordance with Rule 14 (c). 
[Paras 18 and 19) [174-F-H; 175-AJ 
E 
"'!" 
1.2. It is only after the selections have been made 
against these first 20 most meritorious selected 
candidates, that the P.S.C. should mov@ to the next batch 
of 20 In the rank list i.e., from Serial No, 21 to 40, and thia 
' 
_, 
same process is to be repeated again. Thereafter the third 
F 
batch of 20 candidates i.e., from Serial No. 41to60 should 
be considered and selections and appointments made as 
per Rule 14 (a). JPara 20) [175-13) 
1.3, Rule 14 (b) of the Rules only means that in these 
G 
batches of 20 selected i;andidates *he SC/ST or OBC 
·• 
candidate who Is so meritorious t!lat he qµaHfie<I even !n 
. ·( 
the open merit then he will be given an open merit §eat 
and he wUI not take away any of the nu~erved seats. [Para 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 21] [175-C] 
1.4. Hardship is not a relevant consideration when 
the meaning of the Rule is plain and clear. The literal rule 
of interpretation applies in this case. [Para 22] [175-D] 
B 
2.The effect of the High Court's decision is to read a 
proviso into rule 14(a) of the Rules as follows: "provided 
that where the number of vacancies reported to the 
Commission for advic1! exceeds 20, the unit of 
appointment shall be the number of vacancies reported 
C to the Commission". This is not a legitimate method of 
interpretation. The High Court could not have re-written 
Rule 14(a) in this manner based on its conjectures and 
surmises as to what the legislature intended. [Para 23] 
[175-E-F] 
D 
Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (1995) Supp 
1 SCC 192; Trading Engineers vs. Sales Tax Officer (1978) 
1 SCC 636 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union. of India (1992) 
Supp 3 SCC 215, relied on. 
E 
3.1. It is relevant to note that the Commission has 
been advising appointments based on a unit of 20 as 
provided in Rule 14(a) for the last more than 30 years. In 
fact, this Court in

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