LexROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. versus OM PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 47 ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2133-2134 of 2004) NOVEMBER 6, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Service Law - Seniority - lnter-se seniority - Among officers holding the same rank - Selection of direct recruits in C one selection process - However, given training in two separate batches (Batch Nos. 16 and 17) commencing on 1.2.1993 and 2. 7. 1993 respectively - Promotee joining the post on 15. 3. 1993 - Promo tee placed in seniority list below the officers of Batch No. 17 - On challenging the seniority list, Courts o below directed to place the promotee below officers of Batch No. 16 and above the officers of batch No. 17 as per proviso to rule 3 of the Rules - In appeal, direct recruits in Batch No. 17 taking the plea that officers selected through single selection process cannot be accorded seniority by bifurcating in different E batches - Held: Fixing the seniority of the officers of 17th Batch from 1.2.1993 would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior to their birth in the cadre as their training started on 2. 7. 1993 - Such a course is not permissible in law - Border. Security Force (Seniority Promotion and Superannuation of F Officers) Rules, 1978 - r. 3. Interpretation of Statute: Rule of Contemporanea exposition - Administrative interpretation/Executive Construction-Applicability- Held: The G rule can be invoked, but it will not always be decisive with respect to question of construction - The Court may refuse to follow such a construction in a clear case of e"or, on the ground that wrong practice does not make the law. 47 H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R. A Interpretation of proviso - The normal function of a proviso is to provide an exception - Usually, proviso cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has been provided for, nor can be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the enactment or take away a right conferred by the statute - If, B upon plain and fair construction, the main provision is clear, a proviso cannot expand or limit its ambit or scope. Rule of interpretation - If the language of a statute is plain and allows only one meaning, it has to be given effect C to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice - If there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law - Court cannot be called upon to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. Rule of interpretation - While interpreting provision of a D statute, court can neither add nor subtract even a single word - It would not amount to interpretation, but legislation - Court cannot proceed with the assumption that legislature committed a mistake - Even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by legislature in framing the statute, it is E not open to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies - The statute not to be construed in light of certain notions that the legislature might have had in mind or what the legislature is expected to have said. F Maxims: 'Dura Lex Sed Lex' - Applicability. 'A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum' - Meaning and G applicability. H 154 persons were selected to be appointed as Asstt. Commandant (Direct Entry) in Border Security Force. They were sent for training in two separate batches. Batch No. 16 joined the training on 1.2.1993 while Batch ROHITASH KUMAR & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH 49 SHARMA & ORS. No. 17 joined the training on 2.7.1993. Respondent No. A 1, who was promoted from the feeding cadre, joined the post as Asstt. Commandant on 15.3.1993. In the seniority list, respondent No. 1 was placed below all the officers of Batch No. 17. Respondent No. 1 challened the seniority list in a writ petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition holding that he was entitled to be ranked in seniority above the officers of Batch No.17 and below the officers B in Batc.h No. 16. The writ appeal, thereagainst was C dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants, who were the officers in the Batch No. 17 approached this Court with the permission of the Court as they were not the parties before the High Court. They interalia contended that the officers selected o through single selection process, if have been given training in different batches cannot be accorded different seniority by bifurcating
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.