Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The respondent-Department issued an advertisement no.01/2018 dated 20.02.2018 for the post of Computor in the Department of Statistics, Government of Rajasthan under The Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1971'). Condition no.6 of the said advertisement related to eligibility and educational qualifications. It provided that the applicants for the post must be graduates with either mathematics, statistics or economics from the University established by law and so recognized. The further requirement of eligibility was that the candidates should have as detailed, a certificate/ diploma/ degree in computer science and computer application/ course from a recognized institution.

The petitioner's case is that having the requisite notified qualification set out in the advertisement dated 20.02.2018 he applied for the post of Computor in the category of OBC (Non Creamy) (Ex-Servicemen). So issued an admit card he wrote the examination held on 05.05.2018 result of which was declared on 22.06.2018. The petitioner was provisionally selected in the category applied for and required to present himself for verification of documents relating to his eligibility including educational/ professional qualifications. The petitioner submitted his degree in graduation as required and computer certificate dated 05.05.2018 from RSCIT evidencing his requisite qualifications. And even while the cut off for appointment to the post of Computor in the category of OBC (Non Creamy) (Ex-Servicemen) was 35.4008 marks, yet the petitioner belonging to the said category with over 37 marks was not included in the select list issued on 05.11.2018. The purported reason for the rejection of the petitioner's candidature lay in the respondent's assertion that he did not have the requisite RSCIT certificate for appointment on the post of Computor in the Department of Statistics before his writing the examination on 05.05.2018.

The case of the petitioner is that the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 relating to academic and technical qualifications and experience states that a person who has appeared or is appearing in the final examination of a course requisite for fulfilling the educational qualification requirement shall be eligible to apply for the post but proof of the requisite educational qualification having been acquired would have to be submitted before appearing in the written examination where the selection was based on such examination alone - as the selection to the post of Computor was. It has been submitted that the obvious requirement for a candidate having the eligibility for selection is thus that when the written examination takes place for selection to a post in the Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Services the candidate should have the requisite qualifications. And the petitioner when he wrote the written examination for the post of Computor on 05.05.2018 had the requisite educational qualification being both a graduate as required and with a RSCIT certificate issued on 05.05.2018, also the day of the written examination.

Mr.R.P. Singh, AAG appearing for the respondents submitted that operative word in Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 is "before". The plain dictionary meaning of the aforesaid word is "during the period of time preceding". Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 therefore entailed, submitted Mr.R.P. Singh, that as the written examination for the post of Computor was held on 05.05.2018, the petitioner's RSCIT certificate ought to have been available at a period of time preceding i.e. on or before 04.05.2018. The petitioner with the RSCIT certificate dated 05.05.2018 did not therefore satisfy the requisite professional qualification set out in the advertisement dated 20.02.2018 and Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 to be considered for appointment on Computor pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.02.2018. He was therefore rightly excluded from the select list and cannot be appointed a Computor.

Mr.Sandeep Taneja appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 adopted the submissions of Mr.R.P. Singh, AAG.

Heard. Considered.

No language is mathematically exact. It is merely a vehicle for communication of a thought or idea or impression or the state of thing/s or narration of a fact perceived. Literal reading of a word in a phrase can exclude its application to the intended object. Interpretation of a word when not contextual but only literal more particularly when it relates to rights or even obligations can thus be rendered lifeless and deviate from justice. In fact the Rule 2 of the Rules of 1971 provides that the meaning of words in the Rules of 1971 be contextual even overriding the specific meaning to certain words ascribed in the definition clause. In Shailesh Dhairyawan Versus Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619 the Apex Court held that "the principle of purposive interpretation" or "purposive construction" is based on the understanding that the court is supposed to attach that meaning (underlining mine) to the provisions which serve the purpose behind such a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed to accomplish? To put it otherwise, by interpretative process the court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is designed to realise. As Aharon Barak puts it:

"Purpose interpretation is based on three components: language, purpose, and discretion. Language shapes the range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter acts as a linguist. Once the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the legal meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the text can bear in its (public or private) language."

In para 32 and 33, it was held as under:-

of the aforesaid three components, namely, language, purpose and discretion 'of the Court', insofar as purposive component is concerned, this is the ratio juris, the purpose at the core of the text. This purpose is the values, goals, interests, policies and aims that the text is designed to actualize. It is the function that the text is designed to fulfil.

We may also emphasize that the statutory interpretation of a provision is never static but is always dynamic. Though literal rule of interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the 'golden rule', it is now the doctrine of purposive interpretation which is predominant, particularly in those cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. If it brings about an end which is at variance with the purpose of statute, that cannot be countenanced. Not only legal process thinkers such as Hart and Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand strategy for statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered purposivism, this principle is now widely applied by the Courts not only in this country but in many other legal systems as well.

The enquiry therefore in this petition is as to what is the purpose of Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971. I am not inclined to accept Mr.R.P. Singh's submission that the enquiry ends with the dictionary meaning of the word "before" therein and that, so construed, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have the requisite RSCIT certificate on a date preceding the written examination on 05.05.2018 i.e. on or before 04.05.2018 and that a RSCIT certificate of 05.05.2018 i.e. on the date the written examination was held did not fit the bill or supply the statutory eligibility. Mr.R.P. Singh's narrow argument has to fail on more than one count. For one, there is nothing on record to show the time when the RSCIT certificate dated 05.05.2018 was issued to the petitioner. But its clear that it was not issued subsequent to the written examination for the post of Computor under the Rules of 1971 held on 05.05.2018. Further the argument is unfashionable in the context of increasing emphasis on purposive over literal interpretation. On that interpretation, the language of Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 entails the intent of the framers of the Rules of 1971 which was that on the day of the writing of the examination for recruitment to a post under the Rules of 1971 (including of Computor), the candidate should have requisite educational/ professional qualification and such qualification should not have been acquired subsequent to the written examination - (when appointments are to be made only on the basis of written examination). In my considered view the word "before" in Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 has to be so contextually construed as contradistinguished from its antonym and it has to be held that where the requisite qualification was not acquired subsequent to the written examination it was a valid qualification for appointment to the post of Computor under the Rules of 1971. The Apex Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Limited Versus Competition Commission of India & Another (2017) 8 SCC 47 has held that where the plain literal construction of a statutory provision provides a manifestly unjust result which could never be intended by the legislative, the court might modify the language used by the legislative to achieve its intention and produce a rational construction. In this view of the matter I would hold that when the rule making authority used the word "before" in Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 11, the absence of the words prior thereto "on or" is a case of casus omissus. And that has to be supplied by this court lest ambiguity prevail and a rational construction is lost when the requisite qualification is acquired on the date of the written examination.

For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's requisite educational/ professional qualification of graduate as required and of RSCIT on the date of the written examination for the post of Computor under the Rules of 1971 would suffice. To hold otherwise would be wholly unjust without cause.

Consequently, I would allow this petition and hold that the petitioner not being considered ineligible for the post of Computor under the Rules of 1971 only for reason of having acquired the requisite RSCIT certificate on 05.05.2018 - on the very date the written examination for the post in issue was held is wholly illegal and arbitrary. And if the petitioner is now otherwise meritorious and entitled he be placed on the select list as per his comparative merit in the OBC Ex-Servicemen category for appointment as Computor, he be so appointed within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Consequences including for the period past, when lesser meritorious candidates in the OBC Ex-Servicemen category were appointed as Computor following the advertisement dated 20.02.2018, other than monetary benefits, to follow.