RASESH C. CHOKSI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 04-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
• 
.,; 
( 
i ' 
RASESH C. CHOKSI 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS 
November 4, 1977 
[S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AN_D JASWANT SINGH, JJ .] 
809 
Rules governing tfle appointm.!!nt of Registrars 
and 
House1nen 
at 
rhe 
G'over11ment Medical Colleges and attached teaching hospitals fran1ed by the 
Government of Gujarat in Resolution f\!o, MCG-1074-5100(N) Panchayat and 
Flealth Deptt. dt. 7-8-75-fnterpretation of Rule 23-Whether the word "leave" 
in Rule 23 a "noun" or a "verb" and 1vhether acts as a bar for consideration 
for appoint1nent. 
A 
The appellant who had a special interest in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 
i or want of a vacancy in that department joined initially as a Registrar 
of 
C 
Anaesthesia and gave an undertaking to serve in that capacity for a period of 
one year as per the rules th~n existing. Though the tenure of the post wa.., 
extended to two years instead of one, later on, the department did not take any 
undertaking from the appellant to 
serve the entire 
period. Rule 23 of the 
"Rules governing the appointment of Registrars and Housemen in the Govern~ 
ment Medical Colleges and attached Teaching Hospitals" lays down that "the 
candidates who are appointed on <.1ny of the resident posts and leave without 
completing the tenure of their appointment shall not be considered in future 
for the post of Registrar". 
When the appellant applied for the post of the 
· () 
Re~istrar (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) his application on ai wrong interpre-
tation of rule 23 and on the ground that the appellant had not completed bi.;; 
two years' tenure as Registrar of Anaesthesia, was not 
considered and res-
pondent No. 4 was appointed. The Gujarat High Court summarily dismissed 
the writ petition challenging the said appointment of respondent No. 4 and the 
view taken by the department.. 
A Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the 
~aid dismissal also failed. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
E 
HELD: (1) Jn order to understand the real purport and import of the 
word "leave" it is djfficult to lay down any proposition of universal application. 
In the English language there are a numb~r of words which can be used a1'. 
Noun and also as Verb and more often their meanings are different 
when 
they are used as Noun from those when the words are used as Verb. 111c 
t.-ourt has to determine the meaning 
having regard, first to context and the 
setting in which the word has been used; and secondly the coutt has to consi . 
d<;r whether the word "leave" bas been used as a noun or a verb. [812 D-EJ 
F 
(2) The v.ord "leave" used in Rule 23 has Oecn use<l not as a noun but 
as a verb. If used as a verb the word "leave" postulates that the candidates 
niust have left or forsaken the job for ever and ceased to remain in servici.: 
111 which case alone he would not be corisidered for promotion. [813 E-F] 
(3) What Rule 23 contemplated was not that a person \\"bile in service should 
he debarred from applying for a higher post so long as he did not complete 
the tenure for which he was appointed. Rule 23 does not appear to require 
;iny causal connection between the pron1ot.ion to higher job and the tenure of 
the service of the candi·date concerned. It merely signifies that those candi· 
dates who choose to relinquish the service once for all and cease to be in the 
department would not be considered for higher promotion. The rule makinrr 
authority intended to impose a penalty on a person, \\'ho in the midst of a 
job chooses to quit the same for ever by refusing to consider his case for pro-
motion to a higher job which appears to have been confined 
only to those 
candidates who are serving the department and not 
those who had left 
the 
~crvice. 
In the instant case the mere fact that the appellant applied for the job of 
Registrar of Obstetrics and Gynaecology would not amount to his leaving the 
post which he \Vas holding although with the permission of 
the 
departn1cnt 
G 
H 
j 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
810 
SUPREME COURT·REPORTS 
[ 1978] ] S.C.R. 
so as to fall within the 1nischief of Rule 23. 
Rule 23 does not act a~ a bar 
to the 
~1ppointment of the appellant as Registrar of Gynaecology. [813 F-H, 
814 J\l 
[The court directed the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of 
the appellant and if he is appointed, rcYert respondent No. 4.] 
814 Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App<lal No. 1040 of 1977. 
Appeal by Specpial Leave from the Judgment and Order l!ated 
19-1-177 of t

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