SANJAY KUMAR MANJUL versus THE CHAIRMAN, UPSC AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANJA Y KUMAR MANJUL 
I'. 
THE CHAIRMAN, UPSC AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service law: 
C 
Archaeological Survey of India-Superintending Archaeologist-Direct 
recri.itment to-E.uential qualifications-Field expenence in 'Archaeology'-
Person having field experience in "Epigraphy· not considered by UPSC-
High Court allowing his writ petition-Held, the candidate did not ho1d the 
requisite essential qualification and, thus, was not eligible to hold the post-
Jurisdiction of superior courts would be to interpret the rules and not to 
D supplant and supplement the same nor to direct an employer to prescribe a 
qualification for holding a particular post-Power of relaxation must be 
expressly conferred-Constitution of India-Articles I./, 32 and 226-
lnterpretation of Statutes. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
"Archaeology" and "Epigraphy"-Meaning of-In the context of 'field 
experience' in 'Archaeology' prescribed as an essential qualification for the 
post of Superintending Archaeologist. 
F 
An advertisement was issued for the post of Superintending 
Archaeologist. Essential qualifications for the post were, inter alia, "(ii) 
Diploma in Archaeology from the Archaeological Survey of India with three 
years field experience; or field experience of at least five years in Archaeology 
and knowledge of Monuments and Antiquities." Respondent no. 4, who applied 
on the basis of his field experience in 'Epigraphy', was not considered, as in 
G the opinion of the Union Public Service Com mission he did not fulfil the 
essential qualification. He filed an original application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the same. However, his writ petition 
was allowed by the High Court. 
H 
The appellant, who was affected by the order of the High Court, filed 
72 
-
.... 
SANJA Y KUMAR MA NJ UL v. THE CHAIRMAN. UPSC 
73 
~ 
the present appeal contending, inter alia, that having regard to the extant rules, A 
field experience in Epigraphy would not satisfy the test of essential 
qualification for appointment to the post of Superintending Archaeologist. It 
' 
~ 
was submitted that the Commission and the Archaeological Survey of India 
being the expert bodies, the High Court should not have interfered with the 
decision taken by the Department, as "Archaeology" and "Epigraphy" B 
constituted two different disciplines. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Upon interpretation of the terms "Archaeology" and 
"Epigraphy" and keeping in view the subject contents of the Post Graduate c 
Diploma in Archaeology and qualifications for admission to the said course, 
the Court is satisfied that respondent no. 4 did not hold the requisite essential 
/ 
qualifications and, thus, was not eligible to hold the post. (78-B-C; 83-DI 
Webster American Dictionary; Oxford Dictionary; Advanced Law 
Lexicon, 3rd Edn.; 'The New Encyclopaedia of Britannica in 'The Study of D 
History, referred to. 
1.2. What is necessary for applying the principle of interpretation of 
statutes is to take recourse to the literal interpretation and only when the 
same would result in absurdity or anomaly, other principles, depending upon E 
the nature of the statute, may be applied. It is not a case where the terms are 
statutorily defined. The dictionary meaning or the meaning attached to the 
expression in the context of the rules, therefore, must be given effect to not 
only having regard to the purport and object thereof but also the opinion of 
~ 
the experts in the field. (83-A-B( 
F 
N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., ( 19921 Supp. 1 
sec 584, referred to. 
2.1. The qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms 
of the statutory rules. The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory 
G 
rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications 
essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned 
.,. 
who can take ultimate decision therefor. Besides, the power of relaxation, it 
is well-settled, must also be expressly conferred. (79-H; 80-D; Fl 
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, 1196811SCR185, referred to. H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. The jurisdiction of the superior courts would be to interpret the 
rule and not to supplant or supplement the same. The superior courts while 
exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of 
India ordinarily do not direct an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.